I don't think that's the conclusion we've come to at all (if any).

Anyways, to shed a little more analytical light on the point system for gran, the current system works like this:

On average, you gain (or lose) 2X - 1(1-X) = 3X-1 points per battle, where X is your win rate.

Thus, the minimum win rate to even net points on average is 1/3, or ~33%.

To even surpass the minimum 10 points a week for any gain (i.e. get 11 or higher), a player needs to play at least about P = 11/(3X-1) games a week.

Lets say a decent player has a 55% win rate. It's not good, but they probably have some solid strategies and files.

To even make it worth his or her while to place in the rankings this player must play about 17 games per week. So, about 2.4 games per day, or two games one day three games the next.

Well, this looks decent, since past that every game played gets them .65 points per game.

A spectacular player, with a win rate of say 85%, they net 1.7 points per game played. Such a player only needs to play around 7 games a week to get on the rankings, which is easily doable. But since P goes on about 1/X an increase in win percentage gains less and less towards the higher end of the spectrum, and towards the lower end any shift in win rate results in drastically more work to place on rankings.

Now, let's also take into account the fact that a player could play just one game per week and get 10 gran for it, win or loss, which is 10 gran per game. The highest possible return for a player who gains over 11 points is only 2 gran per game. Now lets also say an average game lasts around 25 minutes, including the time needed to find an opponent. Of course this is a rough estimate, it can vary widely depending on the duelers' line speeds, computer specs, strategies, how empty the arenas are, and a whole pile of other variables, but from my experience this is a small bit of an underestimation, so I'll just go with it for now. This way I can pin a more tangible number to the amount of time/effort put in. I've prepared a graph of win rate against hours spent per day using these numbers, and it's a bit revealing about the current system:

At about .5 win rate there's an extra investment time of about an hour a day for minimal gain, 1 gran, and probably this plays a factor into why people who are only decent at the game don't play very often. If your win rate is below .5 then it's probably not even worth going for getting on the rankings for gran. It's also fairly unlikely to get treasure battles as well in this range, since win streaks are hard to pick up. Thus the current system doesn't give much reward at all players who break even and win a battle for every one they lose.

On the other hand, this graph also suggests that those guys who somehow rack up 150 or 180 or 230 points in a week are actually getting sleep: around 4-5 hours a day is a fairly reasonable amount of time to spend to get 100 points a week at a 80% win rate.

If we want to reward players more in lower win % range, then a possibility would be to manipulate the point system so the graphs shift to the left: The benefit is enormous to the players in that range relative to the benefit to the players with high win rate, due to the fact the graph flattens out towards 1. It's one method to give more incentive for the lower performers to play while not causing the frequently mentioned problem of the poor staying poor while the rich get richer.