Most long-term Blbitcoiners are too tired to engage with this bullshit again, but for the one of you new around here: "PoS" is logically broken (specifically: circular), as explained to Wei Dai in 1998 and as definitely crystalized by Andrew Poelstra here:
diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/bitcoin/new-pos.001.pdf

Specifically: a method to vote about the current transactional chronology which uses as a weight the current transactional chronology has literally "nothing at stake": it can only work assuming centralized checkpoints, either in code or in social circles ("weak subjectivity").

Since this flaw has made been quite clear in 1998 already (even if not in such a clear, concise & complete way as in the Poelstra paper linked in OP), Nakamoto had to introduce PoW instead to fix it. Yes you read correctly: PoS is a broken 1998 proposal that PoW *fixed* in 2008!

After PoW, aka the fix introduced by Nakamoto to replace broken PoS, made Bitcoin finally possible, the old debunked proposal was resurrected in 2012 by random shitcoiners Scott Nadal and Sunny King as a way to diversificate 1 out of several useless Bitcoin clones ("PeerCoin").

Nadal and King were counting on the fact that increasingly many & many more Bitcoin enthusiasts were clueless about Bitcoin pre-history, thus vulnerable to the fraudulent marketing. This is not unique to PoS, it also happened with "DAGs/tangles", "HSMs/TEEchains", etc.

Other better funded scammers, like Dan Larimer and Vitalik Buterin, also adopted the same marketing gimmick: the former by actually using convoluted PoS descendants (Bitshares: obviously w/ centralized checkpoints), the latter by just talking about PoS (but using PoW for 7years).

PoS debunking doesn't entail that transaction history can't be used as an anti-Sybil weight *in general* (for example it's currently used in @joinmarket for this reason: "Fidelity Bonds"), but just for voting on transaction history itself, where it can't work for logical reasons.

Most "Crypto" influencers still selling you this old, tired meme today, are lying to you. Some of them may be really just ckueles, but most of them are literally malicious. They have vested financial interest in some "PoS"-based marketing-narrative, which they want to pump.

This is the context for this meme. I didn't intend to explain it, but I was overestimating the familiarity w/ it of many current Bitcoin Twitter readers, & underestimating the influence on them of "Crypto" pundits posing as Bitcoiners. Read Andrew's paper.

For people telling me they can't open the OP link directly, try to go to the PDF from here:
www.semanticscholar.org/paper/On-Stake-and-Consensus-Poelstra/5fc38a9b1301cd65604e67e1a424a1241f66cec...

Also: wtf is a "BIbitcoiner"? Not sure.