You're looking at this as if it were a traditional game where the assets aren't trade-able and don't have value. HS and other traditional games can give out as many rewards as they want to whomever they want, because the rewards are not worth anything.

In a blockchain-based game where players own all of the assets and they are worth money, it adds a money-making aspect that is not present in traditional games, and it's of the utmost importance that the incentives are aligned between acquiring cards and getting to the "top" and making the most money.

If we give out too many rewards to players "at the bottom" (like we were previously) then the best way to make money is to create as many new accounts as possible and automate their play to have them purposely stay "at the bottom" to farm the rewards. In this scenario players "at the top", who made large investments into the game get screwed because they would have been better off financially farming rewards with many low level accounts. This is exactly what was happening and is the main problem the recent changes are meant to address.

Blockchain/crypto games are money games. They are different than traditional games, and yes, people with more money to spend will get much further much quicker. If people "at the bottom" compare themselves to people at the top, that will be discouraging, but if they instead look at it for the opportunities this type of game gives them that traditional games don't - i.e. the ability to earn money while having fun playing a game, then I think it looks much better.

We probably need to do a better job messaging this, but we'll get there.