Why a "Unique Player" Leaderboard Is a Better Solution Than Limiting Scholars
Published on HivePostify by @seattlea · Wed Sep 02 2026
=========================================================================================================
I recently came across [a proposal](https://peakd.com/@shadecroat/proposal-maximum-2-piloted-scholar-accounts) suggesting that Splinterlands should limit each player to a maximum of two piloted scholar accounts.
The proposal is trying to address a real problem, but I don't think the proposed solution is the right one.
After reading through the discussion and the responses, I believe the problem is being identified correctly in some cases, but the focus on scholar accounts is too narrow.
The real issue isn't scholarships.
The real issue is multi-account concentration in competitive leaderboards.
And I think there is a much better way to address it without hurting one of the most interesting and unique parts of the Splinterlands ecosystem.
What Is the Actual Problem? ---------------------------
One of the strongest arguments made in the discussion is that Splinterlands doesn't always look like a competition between players.
Sometimes it looks like a competition between accounts. And those aren't necessarily the same thing, imagine a Champion leaderboard where the top 10 positions look something like this:
Rank Account Controlled By 1 Account A Player X 2 Account B Player X 3 Account C Player X 4 Account D Player Y 5 Account E Player X 6 Account F Player Z 7 Account G Player X 8 Account H Player Y 9 Account I Player X 10 Account J Player W
And if you look at the Modern Champion Leaderboard for the last season you will see exactly what you see above:
Technically, this may be completely legitimate, but from a competitive perspective, something feels wrong. The leaderboard is supposed to tell me who the best players are, instead, it is telling me which accounts have the highest ratings. Those are two different things. And this distinction becomes particularly important when a small number of extremely skilled players operate many accounts as is the case in Splinterlands right now.
I Don't Think Scholars Are the Problem --------------------------------------
This is where I disagree with the original proposal, scholarships are actually one of the coolest concepts in Splinterlands. Someone can own valuable cards without having the time, experience, or desire to play them in that case another player can provide the skill and time needed to play those assets.
That's a legitimate economic relationship and it also provides an opportunity for people who otherwise couldn't afford to participate at higher levels. There are also legitimate reasons for someone to manage multiple accounts:
Guilds need players.
Brawls need players.
People have multiple collections.
Some players enjoy experimenting with different accounts.
Some people build accounts for different formats.
And some players simply enjoy playing more than one account.
I don't think Splinterlands should unnecessarily restrict any of this. That's why I think the debate shouldn't be:
> "How many scholar accounts should one person be allowed to play?"
The better question is:
> "How should Splinterlands measure competitive achievement when one person controls multiple accounts?"
That leads to a much cleaner solution.
Introduce a Unique Player Leaderboard =====================================
My proposal is simple:
Update leaderboards so that they count each player only once.
Call it the:
Unique Player Leaderboard -------------------------
The Unique Player Leaderboard would answer a different question:
> Who are the best individual players in Splinterlands?
For this leaderboard, each player would only be represented once, if I have five accounts in Champion and all five finish in the top 20, that's perfectly fine. But on the Unique Player Leaderboard, I would only occupy one position.
My highest-ranked qualifying account would represent me and this immediately changes the competitive picture. Right now we have Account Leaderboard:
Account Leaderboard
Rank Account Player 1 Alpha Player A 2 Beta Player A 3 Gamma Player B 4 Delta Player A 5 Epsilon Player C 6 Zeta Player A 7 Eta Player D 8 Theta Player B 9 Iota Player A 10 Kappa Player E
After this proposal we have:
Unique Player Leaderboard
Rank Player Best Account 1 Player A Alpha 2 Player B Gamma 3 Player C Epsilon 4 Player D Eta 5 Player E Kappa
It Solves the Perception Problem ================================
One of the biggest concerns raised in the discussion isn't necessarily the actual economic impact of scholars, it is the perception of competition.
If a new player looks at the Champion leaderboard and sees the same handful of people occupying a large percentage of the top positions, that can be discouraging. And it becomes even more problematic if you're trying to present Splinterlands as a competitive game or potentially attract esports players.
Imagine introducing Splinterlands to an experienced competitive gamer, they look at the leaderboard and discover that a relatively small number of players control a large percentage of the top accounts.
The immediate reaction might be:
> "So I'm not really competing against 100 players. I'm competing against a much smaller group of players with multiple accounts."
Whether that perception is completely fair or not doesn't really matter.
Perception matters.
Competitive games live and die by the perception that the competition is meaningful.
Tags: #hive-13323#splinterlands#play2earn#arcadecolony#neoxian#spt#pimp#gaming#proposal#sps