Yes, very promising, but at the same time this statement worries me a little bit:
... please keep in mind that there will only be a relatively small number of validators that receive the lion's share of the votes ...
I hope players spread their votes on many different validators, also smaller ones. HIVE is already way too centralized, I hope Splinterlands won't follow this example!
This is a common misconception about how DPoS systems work. The top voted witness/block producers/validators do NOT have much real power in the system. The staked token holders ultimately have all the power. If the top voted block producers or validators do anything that the token holders don't like, they will be voted out very quickly and lose any rewards they were making from being in the top.
The decentralization in a PoS system comes from the distribution of the tokens. The more distributed the staked token supply is, the more decentralized the network is, and vice versa.
I appreciate that you take the time to reply.
Concerning HIVE I think one of problems is that ...
... the block producers are the main token holders (or at least some of them) and in addition they are (at least as I personally perceive it; while I am aware that not everybody will agree here) a - more or less - homogenous group which supports each other mutually since the foundation of STEEM.
I agree that in Splinterlands the number of big token holders is much higher than in HIVE and not all are so closely connected to each other like the HIVE witnesses, so that this might lead to a higher degree of decentralization.
Furthermore, I gladly admit that I still need to read the whole concept of validators more thouroughly and gather more information to be able to build myself a clear opinion on the matter. Experience tells me that normally your projects are well-conceived, and in case of doubt I am optimistic that it will be the case also this time. :)
That doesn't matter - even if the main token holders aren't the block producers, they can change that in a second. This is what happened with the Steem hostile takeover. It didn't matter that Steemit, Inc was never a witness - they controlled the stake so they controlled everything.
So what I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't worry too much about who the top voted validators are or how many, and should focus much more on the distribution of the token, which I think both SPS and HIVE do a pretty good job with especially compared to a lot of the other networks out there.
OK, that's the deciding point, I agree, and right, SPS is distributed rather diverse (there was for example no early mining etc.).
A sufficient number of validators to guarantee enough safety of the network (enough nodes) is reached by the option for everybody to buy licenses to run a node ... I still need to read more about the details, but am looking forward to see how things will finally work out.
As always: thanks again for all the time and hard work you are investing into the success of Splinterlands!
I like you.
;-)
I'm looking at it in the same manner. I hold a bit and might have a little sway, but already know there is a circle that would overpower any chance I would have at being a 'top validator'. Maybe, idk, got a few guilds going and could might pull it off, have to see more specs yet I suppose.
My view is that was the thinking of making the vast majority of the payout (90%) not based on votes received. I agree that it should not be concentrated in just a few player's hands and I'm sure it will be more spread out than HIVE. I believe the DEVs also understand the point you made and why they made this work out this way. How many I don't know, but I think the "relatively small number" was versus the eventual 60,000. So whether its 50 or 100 or more I don't know, but I doubt it will be 10 or 20.