i considered mentioning it for the previous post you made but decide not to. but since you put it once again i wanted to chip something in for you to think about.
Now this isnt a discussion whether or not you are correct or your analogies are correct this is just a thing to think about.
So skimming through your previous post you used the evidence of "having run a minecraft server and not having any clean space" which is quite good. except for a few things.
1) Did your minecraft server have beacons? or was it just base minecraft? And have you thought about how that compares to boundless? Not sure how to put it.. Atm they still say beacons are 16x16x16 as far as im aware? that is the space that people can "take up". I might be wrong but if there is no such thing in minecraft then one person could "easily" ruin lets say a 1000x1000 area with random building and random digging. boundless? Not so much. after all we still have world regen for anything NOT beaconed. so the guy who might just go in to "ruin" stuff or do mindless things he would "ruin" 16x16x16 area, if God forbid he had four whole beacons he could ruin a whopping amount of 32x32x16. Which if you take into account the amount of space/universe is absolutely nothing. its like saying a single specific grain of sand on a beach can ruin the entire beach.
2) acquiring beacons. If we split people into three groups for convenience. We have "permanent" players who play daily and as such they arent going to lose beacons. "Sprint" players who will be playing the game for some time, level up, and then stop playing for a long time to come back later. "Displeased" people who will go into the game. play for some time and not like the game never to pick it back up again. (This is purely hypothetical. dont take the numbers too seriously). so if we split the community into these. lets say there are 60% permanent players. 30% Displeased players and 10% sprint players (again random numbers). Now we go to the main point of acquiring beacons. It will either be
lets assume that people are given a beacon at spawn. Then we have on the constant graph that people earn a beacon every 2 hours of playing (very low number i would assume. if it was constant i would put it way higher but im trying to favor the side i disagree with) and have a max of 15 beacons.
the graph would look like this
Meaning upon reaching 18 hours you have 10 beacons. Now the permanent players will hit that point and it wont matter, so lets ignore how big a percent those would count for the beacons that would ACTUALLY be in the worlds (because for some reason they wont have ugly builds xD) so then we have the 30% displeased and 10% sprint players. how many hours do YOU believe the displeased people will put into the game? lets again use really ambitious numbers and say that 15% players under 2 hours, 10% plays for around 4 hours and 5% plays for around 8 hours. Then you have 15% of people who only have 1 beacon. 10% who only has 3 beacons and 5% who has 5 beacons. These are the people who wouldnt lose much and dont intend to come back. Then looking at the sprint players if we assume that 5% of those spent the 18 hours and build stuff up to get 10 beacons and 5% spent 12 hours in the game getting stuff (i would still assume low numbers) then you have 5% who has 10 beacons that they have stuff in they want to keep and 5% with 7 beacons who has stuff they want to keep. these will be punished with disappearing beacons.
So let me put it into a pie chart (mhmm pie) in terms of beacons and the numbers that I used (again this is PURELY HYPOTHETICAL but qualified guess) for 100 people
600 beacons placed by permanent players. 85 placed by sprint players and 75 from displeased players. So if THESE EXTREMELY low numbers were to be the case then the amount of beacons placed by "permanent" players would be 4 times as many as the two other types combined. These people could still make ugly and unfinished builds. setting that aside that would mean that 53% of the beacons that would be deleted would be legitimate players who have spent a ton of time in the game and 47% of the deleted beacons would be single or very very small clusters of beacons that would be deleted and that is ASSUMING that there are 3 times as many people who buy the game and quit it early compared to those who just play it for a long time and stop for a long time.
Now if it was to be exponential? then the scale would be tipped even more to the point of the sprint players being the majority being punished. since the assumption is that the sprint player plays until he reaches a certain point or certain beacon size or whatever. while the displeased only play for x amount of hours.
Even with numbers picked that i find extremely favoring how many people were to stop rather than how many legitimate players there would be. even then there is such a close run and it is still only a FRACTION of the beacons that the rest of the people placed.
So when you think "but the new people who will play a bit and never come back" then think about. how many beacons would they even get? would they even spent enough time to ACQUIRE any significant amount of beacons? and how insignificant would that amount be.
So this isnt to say that you are wrong, it just seems like you werent taking world regen into the equation. And again this is why i believe that there should be a system saving everything of a value for the player. because if you dont then i fear that it is a system that punishes the sprint players a hell of a lot more than it benefits the permanent players.