This however would mean people couldn't merit the posts by satoshi. Thus those posts also wouldnt show up in the merit stats.
If we see merit as measure of quality, then those toplists are the lists of the best threads and posts on bitcointalk. I'd consider a few posts by satoshi as some of "the bests posts on bitcointalk".
They should have a chance to show up there and get listed.

Sending merits for exceptional posts sets examples of what "high quality" posts should look like.
Newbies can read those posts and learn how to improve their own posts by doing so. You can improve via merit sent to others, learn by observing.

This thread has been posted not even 3 days ago.
In these 3 days, "22,265 merit has been sent in total."
I would say that refutes your point, wouldnt you agree?

Du kennst theymos nicht, oder?

Let's sum up the two main points you have:

• Your rank depends on ratings given by the general public/many other people.
• Your rank is given by a centralized source.

Don't you think those two stand in contrast to each other?

That is not entirely true, TMAN for example has given a lot of merit to users who openly disagreed with the change or criticized certain aspects. Others have been doing similar things, some more, some less.
I also have given a few merits to people being sceptic, as long as they had a well explained position or provided some alternative they believe to be more suited.
It's not about opinion not about agreeing with someone or disagreeing with them, it's about how you voice that opinion.
People who outright cry and shout "No, no, no" without giving reasons or alternatives don't get merit. Posts like that are neither constructive, nor "high quality".
If you make a well written post, explaining your position and opinion, bring something to the conversation, or just sum everything up really well, you will get merit, regardless of your opinion and stance.

I suspect this is by design, it gives merits a bit more impact than a simple "like" (to which they are often compared).
Also likely (at least part of) the reason why you have to visit a new page, and once again confirm a merit rating you send, so you cannot do this by accident.

Further, it could become quite the mess with sMerit being awarded to the person you rate, and how these are reversed.
Say you have 10 sMerit and reward 10 Merit to someone who previously had none (thus spend all yours), then that person gets 5 sMerit, which also is their total.
Now they go and reward those 5 to someone else (taking their sMerit to 0 too).
Now you want to reverse your merit rating, would this give you your initial 10 sMerit back? Would this also mean the 5 sMerit spent on another person get reversed as their initiator was reversed?
It could get very complicated very quickly with something like that.

Führt das nicht zum gleichen Ergebnis?

You were (maybe just indirectly) complaining about the new system, I've addressed those complaints. Obviously, I'm not going to pay you, or anyone, for suggesting posts to receive merit. Get real.

Flaw, not flow. And after two/three days, that is to be expected.

Or does it further increase interaction by people sharing good posts, recommending them, and thus adds more value, instead of taking anything away?

Then you dont merit them and someone else does. You can't merit everyone, you arent expected to.

I am. If you want to recommend quality posts that deserve merit, collect them, write me a PM and I will review them. Should I agree with your recommendations, I have enough sMerit to reward those posts.
(This is only valid for you, StelioKontos, I will ignore recommendation lists sent to me from any other account.)

I've read your post with red/blue 3D glasses. Can confirm: better than LSD.

Why would theymos changing a value be a "waste"? It's as simple as theymos setting his merit to 21M. Done.
There's no sMerit that would have be used for that and those Merits wouldn't exist and thus are not "taken away" from anyone else.

It's a fun little detail. Why does your postcount show leet when you reach 1337 posts? It's a waste of programming, nobody gains something from it.
Or maybe easter eggs are what makes things interesting. Small details that don't make a huge difference over all, but go a long way.

---

I jokingly suggested that, and think it's unlikely theymos would agree/set them to this value. Though I'd still find it a nice little gesture.
The argumentation against however, I don't really understand.

Find them, point me to them, I'll merit them (or you can merit them yourself, you know?).
There already are several threads by people that are looking to be pointed towards good posts so they can give merit as rewards.

/thread

It still would be an annoyance for the sources.
Given that there is no direct reward for being a source, they shouldn't be further punished with spam related to this.

Generell gesehen, ja.
Zwar nicht in jedem Fall, aber doch mehrheitlich, speziell in jüngerer Zeit.
Gründe dafür und mögliche Änderungen (abseits der naheliegenden: Signaturen komplett entfernen) können gerne diskutiert werden,
allerdings ist dieser Thread vielleicht nicht der richtige Platz dazu.

Wurde oft und lange diskutiert, inklusive verschiedener Vorschläge wie diese Regulierung aussehen könnte.
Wollte theymos bisher nicht, allerdings ist das Merit System ein erster Schritt mehr Macht in die Hände der Community zu geben, eventuell ändert sich theymos' Meinung hierzu ja noch.

Gibt ja auch normale Signatur Kampagnen die nicht Altcoin oder ICO orientiert sind.

---

Ja.

The amount of sources was already increased from 35 to 49, as well as the average sMerit every source gets per month.
This is after just one day, it's growing and likely to do so even more if needed.

You couldnt even read the first post, could you?