I don't think much realism was applied to ETH 2.0 design. There is no non-custodial solution for staking-as-a-service, which means Coinbase et. al. will dominate because they already know how to do money services business compliance.

Add to that the Blockchain Association lobbying for PoS not being income so there's no selling pressure on whales.

At least in the short-term, the system is going to be a gift to: (1) ETH whales who want to become bigger ETH whales; and (2) Coinbase etc.

Ethereum seems likely to become more economically centralized as a result of PoS, at least in the short term.

and then there's this: https://twitter.com/lightclients/status/1298680048287809536

basically looks more and more like ETH PoS will have an outcome similar to Tendermint-style consensus where there are a relatively small number of highly professionalized services doing all the work for the network

not sure all the complications like '32 ETH' were worth it

again, *in the short term*; I realize there are plans to make it better later (there always are, in Ethereum) and *maybe* the design choices will prove themselves smart on a longer timeline

I just really wonder if PoS will mean exchanges become even more powerful and we lose one source of diversity--block producers as a separate concern from users, exchanges, app developers and investors