I'd encourage you to broaden your understanding of the purpose of PoW and specifically the energy used. The energy used is the cost of securing a PoW blockchain--quite literally, the cost of the energy used is what makes it difficult to mount a successful attack. It is simple and universally accessible. It is not "inefficient"; it is functioning exactly as intended.
What I think you are really trying to say is that you think the benefits provided by a PoW blockchain do not merit the economic expense of securely maintaining it. And that's a fine opinion to have. But the only reason you pay attention to the electricity cost is because it is highly visible--you probably have no clue how much electricity is consumed by all the other economic activities that you may consider pointless or wasteful.
There may be some Bitcoiners who think it should be used for all payments, but I’m not one of them. Centralized payment processors will always be more efficient, especially for the massive flow of low-value casual transactions that the average consumer produces.
So you replaced "shareholders" with "developers of cryptocurrencies/beneficiaries of the development fund".
Does a rose, by any other name, not smell as sweet? I mean, from the case you're making, these v3 protocols seem more like securities.
Stablecoins sound exactly like banks. Which means AML/KYC/Reserves on the horizon.
The entire cryptocurrency space recreated the current financial system, rooked in a new generation of suckers (and some old one's that should have known better), did everything current financial product regulations were put in place to prevent, made it as energy inefficient as humanly possible in the case of PoW, but it isn't all that cause it's called something different.
My distinction without a difference alarm is ringing itself off the wall at the moment.