I believe there is a simple way to refute this approach. I’m going to make up some numbers here. The specific numbers aren’t exactly meant to be important, just the way they interact.
Suppose we demand a 99% guarantee of correctness (I know, that reality would have more 9’s but it shouldn’t be important for this exercise).
In the single client world, we have to create one client that achieves the correctness goal.
Now, in a network with three clients, each with equal share of the network, we only fail if two or more clients fail at the same time. After an embarrassing amount of futzing with the statistics, we achieve the same overall 99% guarantee as long as each of the three clients is at least 94% correct.
The difficulty of improving the correctness is non-linear, meaning as you increase correctness, so does the difficulty of increasing it any further. By spreading the responsibility out across multiple clients, they each can be less correct and it is my assertion that the overall difficulty is on par or lower to have three clients each with a lower correctness guarantee than to have a single client with an extremely high correctness guarantee.