I sent the Albatross paper to Pyrofex www.pyrofex.io. I think pyrofex are very strong and making nice research in consensus protocols and their feedback will be valuable and you may consider doing some research together. They have just released their paper for their POS consensus algorithm if you want to check (https://twitter.com/pyrofex/status/1103464661138038784).

I paste here the comments from Pyrofex to me in their TG channel:

“We looked at it this morning. It looks fine and it might work, but it is basically a way of taking turns at block production. We don’t think any kind of master election style protocol can be made to scale. Also any time you see someone producing a chain instead of a DAG, it’s not gonna scale and they are probably too focused on their protocol and not focused enough on the transaction model.”

“We also recently reviewed Thunder… here is what I sent to a friend who asked us about their protocol…”

"The protocol Thunder is using requires good network conditions to make progress on the fast chain. That is not what Casanova requires. In fact, Casanova remains fast even when network conditions are degraded, because validators can attest to blocks anyway and fix conflicts later when network conditions improve.

When we say “optimistic consensus” what we mean is that Casanova finds consensus under the optimisitic assumption that people aren’t double spending. This has nothing to do with network conditions.

When Thunder says “optimistic conditions” what they mean is that the network is fast and the centralized accelerator is working properly. This has nothing to do with transactions.

Our protocol is going to work much better, IMO. The thing we did that is so unique is we designed a protocol and transaction model that work together, instead of designing them separately. That turned out to make a big difference in complexity for the protocol."