This paper presents an empirical evaluation of the Proof of Team Sprint (PoTS) consensus algorithm, focusing on reward fairness, energy efficiency, system stability, and scalability. We conducted large-scale simulations comparing PoTS with conventional Proof of Work (PoW) across various team sizes and computational conditions. In PoW, the highest-performance node ranked first in all 100 trials, demonstrating extreme centralization. In contrast, PoTS reduced this dominance: the same node ranked first only 54 times, indicating fairer reward distribution. Statistical analysis showed that as team size increased, skewness and kurtosis of reward distributions decreased, confirming improved equity among participants. PoTS also demonstrated significant energy savings. The total active computation time followed a near $1/N$ scaling trend, reducing energy use by up to 64 times when team size was 64, while preserving consensus integrity. Repeated simulations showed stable reward distributions and system performance, affirming PoTS's robustness. Furthermore, the correlation between performance and reward peaked at 0.90 for team size 16, reflecting an optimal balance between fairness and meritocracy. Overall, PoTS offers a cooperative, energy-efficient alternative to PoW, mitigating centralization risks and promoting equitable participation. These findings validate PoTS as a sustainable and fair consensus mechanism suited for future blockchain systems.