Maybe theymos will take a look about this idea, and increase the sMerit points for Hero members and legendary members (Which they are active and reputable), Or to increase the number of merit sources, which will be enough merit for each one to receive. Honestly, I didn't know how theymos choose the 57 merit sources, It's random or what? , I think there is some criteria if this is not RANDOM.
This is a great idea actually! if Legendary/Hero members would get 1 sMerit for every merit they receive instead of 0.5 it would distribute the responsibility of spending those merits instead of it being mostly put on sources. I guess the merit sources where hand picked, knowing they're only 57 of them it won't be so hard to do. Either way, "established members" can apply for being a merit source: If you want to be a merit source:
1. Be a somewhat established member.
2. Collect TEN posts written in the last couple of months by other people that have not received nearly enough merit for how good they are, and post quotes for them all in a new Meta thread. The point of this is to demonstrate your ability to give out merit usefully.
3. We will take a look at your history and maybe make you a source.
I am especially eager to have merit sources in sub-communities such as the local sections.
|
|
|
|
I know that the purpose of this system is to create a better forum with better members but just imagine yourself a full member needing almost 2 years to get to senior. Is that fair?
Well, I am exactly in this situation. More of that I've reached Sr. Member rank by my activity in a short time after Merit system saw the light, so I count that totally unfair, cause on now with my current speed of earning merits the target seems just impossible. I think moderators should to think about those members who are on boarder between two ranks and to make the mission to them a little easier. Theymos could've solved this problem the time he created the merit system.. He could've easily given every member merits based on activity and not ranks, for example: A full member like you who has 250 activity should have been given around 200 merits to start with not only 100 (the amount needed for member rank). But he must have his reasons not to do so... Well, I don't really see how they can be mad, they're newcomers to the community, and newcomers always have a hard time integrating or becoming established among well known members, this is true for all industries.
A hard time is something and 1, 2 or even more than 3 years for every rank upgrade is a totally different thing! I thought that in the beginning, I was just a fresh Member when the Merit was introduced. I had some old good posts and started getting merit just keeping those up to date. I'm still a member but tomorrow evening I'll reach the needed activity points for Full Member, got enough merit til now to prove that the system is really working if you are helping the community in some way and stay away from shitposting. I guess these 30 points I'm missing will not be a problem , but I'm not In hurry. I'll be happy to wear avatar some day. As I like to say, "don't blame the system, blame yourself" is applicable here too  Well, good for you being one of the high quality posters! But let me remind you that you needed to post 3 times as much as your activity to get those merits.. Almost every member with merits enough to rank up soon after they got enough activity have posted 3 to 5 times their activity, which is 3 to 5 posts a day! Not all members can dedicate that much time for the forums... On the other hand it makes activity totally useless if someone needed much more than the number of posts needed for maximum activity in order to get enough merits.. As I like to say, "don't blame the system, blame yourself" is applicable here too I guess it's partially applicable but I'm not blaming anyone.. I'm merely hoping for an improvement in the system. Cuz u know if only the best posters get those merits and above average posters don't get them despite trying too hard to improve their posting quality will lead them to leave the forums in the end and we don't want that do we? I believe the forums is not only for the very best members, but rather that it's for everyone who is willing to contribute! |
|
|
|
Good analysis. I believe the merit system is still too young and it will be needed some time to all users to get used to it. Now, everyday I read publications abput how to get merit (mostly made by newbies), but I understand even in the higher ranks now it is really difficult to rank out, for example from hero to legendary.
It's for sure still too young and I think most users are having a hard time ranking up no matter what rank are they currently in. It is time to create a kind of Merit-contest?? We can pick a topic and let the people talk about it, and see what happens...
Those kinds of contests are already taking place.. Like here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2957836.0There are also people giving away merits to other members who refer them to an under-merited post of theirs. As long as you have the sMerits to give away you can create one yourself! The admins are letting people create merit contests/giveaways but first you'd need the merits to do so, leading us to the heart of the problem which is: There isn't enough merits! Since new participants cannot able to analyze the quality post. High rank members have the knowledge to understand which one is quality post. If meriting option goes to less rank members it will become another spam here.
I never said that I wanted new members to be in charge of giving away merits.. Now Hilariousandco starting washing out the merit sellers and exchangers. You may find many people have bee tagged in this, Hope he will take this as a huge list.
Banning merit Sellers and exchangers would be of great help to us! As more merits will be available to legitimate users. |
|
|
|
OK, let me add some calculations too then. We stated with 35 Merit Sources (MS for short) on the first day of the Merit system. On 26th Jan. were already 49 MS. / reference/ Today they are 57 MS. So for one month from 35 till 57 this is 22 new sources, awesome but... 14 were added for 1 day, so we exclude them to be more realistic /see the reference link above/ Then there are minimum around 8 new MS added per Month! Since this is the first and only month till now and the data is not enough, we need to give more time to the system to actually see how it is working. Now it's just speculations.
P.S. The image in the OP is not loading. You can see the image here: https://i.imgur.com/BGE88BT.pngYou're right.. I only hope that it will cope with the huge number of accounts on this forum. We'll wait and see Edit: sorry about the image, here you go this should work: https://imgur.com/a/snYsn |
|
|
|
OK, that makes a bit more sense. But taking a Sr. Member as an example you say in the OP:
"Sr. members get 14% x 24k = 3360 which is enough for 3360/250 = 13.44 members every month."
But it takes 8.5 months to get the extra 240 activity to become a Hero.
I calculated the number of members that rank up every month, but you're right it would have been better to calculate it your way because it gives a better understanding about the number of members the merit system can sustain. Because a Sr. member won't need those 250 merits in one month but he will need around 30 of them every month of the 8 months he need to get the activity. Will edit the OP right away! Thanks ^_^ |
|
|
|
There are many High ranked members not aware of the merit system yet.
They are also holding sMerit, which can be distributed and generates more sMerit.
If you calculate how many members are in each rank category, above Jr. and take into account the initial sMerit for every rank, you can pretty much add those sMerits to the actual pool we have at the moment.
I have already given 30 merits, even still a member only.
You're right.. but calculating that would be so hard to do and I will only get the amount they started with while not knowing how much they have left. On the other hand the current pool won't last forever and soon we'll need to depend on merit sources. Whether the math in the OP is correct or not, I'd offer this counterpoint:
If we had reset the boards completely and started everyone from newbie status and 0 activity at the moment merit was implemented on 24th Jan, there are plenty of users who would have received sufficient merit to be Members, or even Full Members, but it actually would be the Activity preventing them from attaining that rank. This alone makes me think we've got the balance correct.
I didn't really understand what you're saying.. But if you look at the profiles of the couple of guys who replied above, each one of them posted 3 to 5 times more than his activity in order to get near the amount of merits needed to rank up.. Is that the right thing to do?
The OP's main argument is centered around Ranking Up.
This is only to earn crypto by posting a lot of meaningless posts in order to satisfy the bounty requirements,
This is why the Merit system was created to reduce or eliminate.
As bitperson states a persons rank does not prevent them from participating in the forum.
If people get involved in a positive and meaningful way ranking up will follow.
Of course my argument would be about ranking up, the merit system's point is about ranking up... And yes ranking up will follow but after so many years of dedicating your self to this forum. |
|
|
|
Because this is the first month in the new system and people started with sMerits to give away.. Once those merits end and we start depending only on merits generated by sources the amount of merits generated per month will be around 24k if the number of sources or the amount they generate doesn't increase. |
|
|
|
If two years is what it takes someone to receive 125 merits, then yes, that's fair for that particular person. Particularly since merit and rank do not affect users' ability to participate on the forum. Ranking up is basically eye candy.
Why are so many users complaining like it would be some kind of basic human right to become legendary by posting stuff that no one but their own mother considers useful?
It's not "that particular person" it's the average member which means more than half the members of this forum have this problem and even if you are a better poster how much above average you think you'd be? will you get double the amount an average user gets? triple? it would still take you much more than it did in the old system. I'm not complaining about the merit system I'm complaining about the very low amount of merits it produces.. |
|
|
|
First of all I wanna thank zentdex for his great analysis about how many merits each rank - on average - gains a month. I used some of the data he provided in his post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3015036.0Now to my point: I took my time to do the math and see how many members can the current merit system sustain and here are the results: SUMMARY https://imgur.com/a/snYsn First of all let me remind you of rank requirements: Newbie: 1 activity and 0 merits Jr. Member: 30 activity and 0 merits Member: 60 activity and 10 merits needs 2 months to get the activity Full Member: 120 activity and 100 merits needs 4 months to get the activity Sr. Member: 240 activity and 250 merits needs 8 months to get the activity Hero Member: 480 activity and 500 merits who knows?  around 12 months Legendary: 775 - 1030 activity and 1000 merits There are currently - at the time of this post - 57 merit sources with a total merit generation of up to 11975 sMerit per 30 days. Those are the merits generated by sources only, and given that a member can send half the merits he receives and imagining the best case scenario where every member sends all the merits he receives, the total amount of merits generated by the system would double to 23950 sMerit per 30 days. So, roughly 24k sMerit per month. Now to the boring math: Based on Zentdex's analysis the 24k merits are distributed between ranks in the following manner: Legendary: 8% Hero: 8% Sr. Member: 14% Full Member: 16% Member: 19% Jr. Member and Newbie: 23 + 11 = 34% So... Legendary members get 8% x 24k = 1920 merits Hero members get the same amount 1920 which is enough for 1920/500 = 3.84 members to rank up every month. The No. of Hero members the system can sustain: 3.84 x 12 = 46.08 Sr. members get 14% x 24k = 3360 which is enough for 3360/250 = 13.44 members every month. The No. of Sr. members the system can sustain: 13.44 x 8 = 107.52 Full Members get 16% x 24k = 3840 which is enough for 3840/150 = 25.6 members every month. The No. of Full members the system can sustain: 25.6 x 4 = 102.4 Members get 19% x 24k = 4560 which is enough for 4560/90 = 50.67 members every month. The No. of Members the system can sustain: 50.67 x 2 = 101.34 Jr. Members and Newbies get 34% x 24k = 8160 which is enough for 816 members every month. The time needed to rank up is easily acquired by dividing the amount needed to rank up by the average merits gained per month. Conclusion (my opinion): The amount of merits produced by the system is too very low, as we've seen that it would take an average member 3 to 5 times the time it took him to rank up in the previous system, I know that the purpose of this system is to create a better forum with better members but just imagine yourself a full member needing almost 2 years to get to senior. Is that fair? How frustrated you'd be? Well, this is the case for half of the seniors members in the forums! Not to mention that I described the best case scenario and didn't go into calculating all the sMerits that are horded and not used and the merits that are sold on black markets. |
|
|
|
Well.. you're the one that should be able to tell if it's merit hording or not  If your sMerits are increasing then you're hording them, if you're spending as much as you're getting then you're doing the right thing! And you can always go from giving 1 merit at a time to giving 2 which would double the amount spent if you ever see that you've hoarded so many merits. I took a look at your merit history and IMO you're doing a great job in giving them away! |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the great infographic!
Just a couple of questions:
Does this 10k merits per month include the sMerits we get after being merited (the 1/2 merits that can be resent)?
Will this amount change or is there an intention to change - especially increase - it in the future?
And don't you think this amount is too low?
I mean if 1/3 of those merits were given to legendary members who don't need them for ranking up.. only 7k merits will be left for all other forum members.
So.. Every month, among all members, around 25 will get to Full member (2.5k merits) and 15 to Sr. member (2.25k) and 7 to Hero member (1.75k) and 1 to legendary (0.5k)
PS: The way I calculated it:
Sr. member needs 150 merits to get from Full member rank (100 merits) to Sr. member rank (250 merits).
So for 15 members to rank up we would need: 150 x 15 = 2250
|
|
|
|
Well, there names are secret as Theymos said: I will not be posting a definitive list of merit sources (so that people don't bug them too much)
And you're right about the local forums, he's actually searching for quality members to be merit sources there! I am especially eager to have merit sources in sub-communities such as the local sections.
Anyway about your main question those members are not "distributed" they can see your post and merit it wherever you post it and IMO the more popular the forum section you post in the higher the chance that you'll get merit for you posts, because members give merit and the more of them see your high quality post the more will merit it. |
|
|
|
|
Ethereum is already at half of bitcoin's market cap so I don't see it far from happening.
Actually once an alt gets near bitcoin's market cap chaos will be all over crypto world.. Just imagine all the FUD here, in the news, around the internet and everywhere!! Panic sellers, panic buyers, bitcoin will lose a lot of its value while that coin gets it on the other hand..
So prepare for the time that day comes, and buy that alt before it beats bitcoin and sell after. At the end it will probably be a bump and dump situation like we saw recently with xrp.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe not to the moon but it will definitely get a huge boost if lighting network is as good as they say.
|
|
|
|
|
If lightning network will be as good as what they say then I'm sure bitcoin will recover some dominance, IMO one of the most important reasons for people using altcoins is the high fees and transaction times in the bitcoin network.
|
|
|
|
...why are you all dumping it for fiat currency buying Lambos and Nintendo Switch?
What is a currency if we don't buy stuff with it? |
|
|
|
|
Maybe edit the original post every now and then and add "last time updated xx-xx-xxxx" to the title?
|
|
|
|
Actually those high fees are a big part of making bitcoin a store of value asset rather than a real currency. That's why people buy bitcoin and just sit on it. While if you wanted a real currency it would be better to turn to other alts..
BTC is mined in a predictable and steady manner. Fiat is inconsistent by nature so this is a moot point. Fiat is not money and should not be used for measuring anything.
So how do you suggest we measure the value of things? Using how many chicken eggs do they cost? |
|
|
|
How foolish??! Everyone who bought before this month is definitely in x1.5 profit at least right now and everyone who bought before the high surge that happened this year are in 10 to 15 times profit.. I don't see how they are stupid |
|
|
|
You are literally commenting on the content of the link without even reading what the content is? The link - as would be evident - is to a book on Amazon. As you will see because it deals with 800 years is not specific on Bitcoin. It is hard-core analysis showing exactly why it is never different - and never has been. I can see why you have a tough time understanding new items when you approach to anything not fitting your preconceived notions is simply dismissed based on what you guess the content is, not what the actual content is.
I won't be reading the whole fuckin book just because you put its link in a post! I just read what is in the page you put its link and its enough to know what the book is about.. You clearly are lying now. Your initial comment to the link was :
Everything the link says is that bitcoin will crash someday
There is nothing in that page even close to what you are saying here. There is no point in discussing this point with you when you are simply flat out lying. But this is also typical of people who are afraid to admit that they are wrong - then they would much rather tell obvious lies than admit they are wrong. It seems that you don't understand what your link is all about. It doesn't have to explicitly say "bitcoin" to be explained the way I explained it.. And by the way you still didn't answer my question so I'm done arguing with you... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
