No, platform is not half baked. We will have many features that no other blockchain will have, so you need to dispel any notion that the work that we release will not be top notch. High fees are an issue, but even if they weren't here are the problems with non HPMN solutions:
Any solution not forcing platform while maintaining 1k collateral :
This would lead to heavily centralization. All the math shows this. 1 entity could most likely stop the chain depending on how many initial rewards we send to platform. There is even risk with massive centralization of funds being able to be stolen if 1 entity could control over 2/3rds of the network. To me this is very scary. I am okay to code up solutions that would allow the chain to potentially stop if the network voted decided that was the solution they liked the best, but I would never be okay with a solution where funds could be stolen. People calling for these solutions in the name of decentralization are ill informed and might be unwilling to listen to reason.
The everyone runs platform solution :
We would be forcing everyone to run platform causing ROI to go very much down as hardware requirements go up, a lot of people would probably skimp on their hardware requirements. If platform does manage to start, then a lot of people would start to complain because they weren't getting rewards, because their nodes would be too weak (eventually). Look, it might work, I just think it's a lot more risky than other scenarios. If the network decides to go this option, all I can say is that we will see and I'll pray to have been wrong. And then we have the downside that if something goes terribly wrong with platform it could stop the entire masternode network.
When we see all the downsides from these solutions, and then HPMNs also just so happen to have really low fees, allow the whole network to have higher ROIs, take very little work to code up, obviously we will be pushing for these solutions, because they work better while the others at least to me are scary.
Could you please elaborate on the bold. Where is the math that shows that a non forcing solution will lead to heavily centralization? I assume the below is a formal way to express your opinion.
IF [the data stored in the Dashplatform are huge (huge=???) OR they last long(long=???) ] AND the masternodes are not forced to host the DashPlatform
THEN the cost(cost=???) of replicating the data across 4000 nodes will be too high(high=???) to make Platform economical to use (economical_to_use = ???), and due to this high cost many masternodes will refuse to host the Dashplatform and the DashPlatform will become centralized.
Is this your formal way to express your opinion? Could you please define the variables "huge", "long","cost", "high","economical_to_use" that were used in your math analysis?