Gavin Wood describes Ethereum as a "global singleton", and could on a time-line of societal evolution be seen as the successor of nation-states and similar organization, which in turn succeeded religions. The trend over time in that time line is to allow more types of transactions to happen, which without state (including religion as state) would not be processable due to genetic bias.

This trend of moving in the direction global singleton <= nation-states <= religions is what leads towards Paul Emile de Puydt notion of Panarchy from 1860, a "universal realm", a free market for government made possible by the use of technological trust-mechanisms such as one-way functions, which are not bound by dunbar's number.

The Nakamoto consensus and reward incentives to allow more types of transactions to happen

In hindsight, universal suffrage reforms in nation-states around the world has been beneficial in the eyes of the general public, tough at times preceding that reformation it was not the case, the idea of universal suffrage was competing with genetic bias, and how testosterone decreases oxytocin's ability to calm the amygdala, neurosis that led to a gene-driven response to defend the females, and to do so through seeking to control the "system" (which was not understood in whole. )

The same type of trend is seen as the Nakamoto consensus introduces reward incentives to encourage miners, in proof-of-stake and proof-of-power called validators, to allow more types of transactions, to the point where blockchains and derivatives of those become "rule-space commons". This opening-up of the types of rules that can be tolerated, has similar benefits as previous societal reformations, and is fought in similar ways, to protect, from an absence of understanding.

Proof-of-power and including people in the Nakamoto consensus incentive system

Proof-of-power is modeled on how representative authority in the nation-state was a natural emergence, and is built around that people are in control of the network, through proof-of-suffrage. As the Nakamoto consensus uses reward incentives to author the state, to distribute those rewards will also distribute the incentive that allows for Panarchy and a free market for rules, and make people in general more open to the idea, as that is exactly what the mining reward which Bitcoin pioneered was intended to do.

So, In proof-of-stake, validators are conceived to view the security of the network as a self-interest, and, that is combined with mining rewards as an incentive. In proof-of-power, those two incentives are separated, the people who use proof-of-suffrage to “power” validators are conceived to have self-interest to secure the state, and oversee the validator, who, as an employee, is rewarded with a mining reward (and, the mining reward is also divided on those who “power” the validator. )

Whitepaper:

Proof-of-power, using a swarm to select miners through majority consensus