This is not necessarily true. For example, right now ~50% of the miners of Bitcoin Cash are “unknown”. Also, the fact that they have physical presence means that they can potentially be attacked or coerced by real-world powers-that-be, so relying too heavily on that carries other risks.
I personally would prefer security models that make absolutely no assumptions about who the miners/stakers are and what they care about other than money, as I’d argue it’s a core principle of cryptoeconomics that we are building socially scalable systems where the “story” for why you should trust some system does not at all depend on whether you think the government of country A are good people, think the government of country B are good people, think multinational corporations are good people, etc etc; the story should only depend on the fact that we can trust that (i) cryptography works, (ii) all of the above groups like getting money and dislike losing money, and (iii) all of the above groups only have a limited supply of money that they can burn on frivolous blockchain-killing exercises. None of these three requirements are in any significant sense culture-specific, so we can rest at ease that the security model will continue working for a long period of time under a wide array of possible circumstances.