That's a ridiculous definition. So nobody can advertise that they plan to add a novel feature to a piece of software, even if the code already exists in draft form, without being labeled a vaporware peddler?
That could be worse than vaporware. There probably needs to be a term for touting a feature that may turn out to be like the DAO.
SchrodingerWare?
Here's the World Food Programme referencing the system with no technical details: https://www.wfp.org/news/news-release/wfp-introduces-innovat...
Here's a Coindesk article (who are obviously very pro-crypto, but more pro-Bitcoin and less pro-Ethereum) from today on some vague details: http://www.coindesk.com/united-nations-sends-aid-to-10000-sy...
I'm still trying to find out how this all worked. There have been articles saying this was their plan in various sources for over a month, though. I'd like to know as well. It's at least clear there was a program involving digital vouchers.
Found one --- here's Wired Germany outlining that it was in fact Ethereum the UN/WFP used with IrisScan to provide a benefit payment method for refugees. They are still scant on specific technical details, but if you are really starved, then it sounds like you should contact Parity.
https://www.wired.de/collection/tech/blockchain-fluechtlinge...
Until it goes live, it's vaporware. The issue isn't "can proof of stake code be written" the question is "will eth continue to function safely and correctly using a proof of stake system"? We'll talk when it hits production.
> The UN uses an ethereum app to send aid to Syrian refugees via vouchers:
The details are not really clear from the article. How does this work? Why was this possible with eth but not with bitcoin or dogecoin or any other cryptotoken? How do displaced Syrian refugees accept, manage, and spend digital currency? I am highly skeptical of this without lots of details.