Only incentivising a portion seems strage to me. If something is better, then everyone should aspire to do it. Otherwise it is not really a pure "incentive." So this actually means you want to DISincentivise or disuade people from running platform nodes because you only want only good actors with correct hardware running it, but don't have the decentralized means to enforce that. At least that's the reason I've come to understand so far.Basically the issue is that you need collaterals higher than the base collateral to incentivize only a portion of the network to run it, you need to play with a higher than base collateral and with the allocation to allow something desirable to happen.
Looks a bit like arbitrary central planning to me, and it might be fine for a stopgap measure due to lack of POSE but it might set a bad precedent and does represent a significant change to the project with the establishment of a new proof of stake node class that is similar to other projects--which I suspect receive more legislative scrutiny than we have historically received (privatesend notwithstanding).
Like some others here, I am disappointed that PoSe was not implemented for platform. I thought the whole creation of PoSe itself was because it was necessary for and would be used on platform.