sMerit deadline

[coinlocket$]

I was thinking that a very effective way to reduce the number of cheaters is to put a deadline on merit (x days on unspent sMerit).
The solution for limit the abuse/sell/exchange for those who have a legendary account or hero and pass the sMerit on other alts is to set the deadline, in this way they can not send the sMerit to alts to increase their ranks(more than 1 rank).
You are probably thinking: Yes, but the sMerit after a while will end!
You right, but I will give you an example:

From boss's formula used to calculate the airdrop:

Code:

yearActivity = activity in the last ~ year, max 378
freeMerit = the merit (not sMerit) you started with
modifier =
  0.1 if member
  0.2 if full member
  0.25 if sr member
  0.35 if hero
  0.4 if legendary

return (yearActivity / 378) * modifier * freeMerit

If you were a Legendary who maxed out your activity points in the last year, in which case you would get 1 * 0.4 * 1000 = 400 sMerit.
(Hero 1*0.35*500)=150 sMerit

From here we can make an example for one person with 1 legendary account with the sMerit cap of 400
If they use it all on different accounts, a maximum of 400/2 = 200 sMerits are generated. If they are re-use they will become 200+ (200/2) + (100/2) + (50/2) + (25/2) + ( 12/2) + (6/2) + (3/2) + (2/1) = 403 which are a lot!
In addition to this negative fact of abusing, there are several people who have a Merit / sMerit ration very far from 2 which is the maximum, a lot of them really don't care abount the sMerit.
So if in my opinion if we introduce the deadline for the unused sMerit we also increase the sMerit circulation.
I also remember that we are at a time when about 18k sMerit are generated from the sources and on the forum we have around 22k sMerit montly circulation, very far away from the theoretical maximum!

What do you think about the deadline for sMerit? Good  or Bad idea?

[1714977380]

1714977380

[1714977380]

1714977380

[1714977380]

1714977380

[1714977380]

1714977380

[1714977380]

1714977380

[1714977380]

1714977380

[jackg]

Won't limiting the spending of sMerits in itself cause people to farm their merits.

If someone told so many users that their sMerit will be decaysed by tomorrow, a lot will probably be more inclined to sell their sMerit immediately and get something from it (which is what we are really trying to avoid here).

[coinlocket$]

Won't limiting the spending of sMerits in itself cause people to farm their merits.

If someone told so many users that their sMerit will be decaysed by tomorrow, a lot will probably be more inclined to sell their sMerit immediately and get something from it (which is what we are really trying to avoid here).

My idea was to set 2 months for deadline.

[Talk merit]

I don't think they should decay for two reasons.

- Some members have very focused interests, and they would only reward posts in that interest group. these may be infrequent, but valuable to the community. depriving them of merits would not be beneficial in this case.

- merit sources only use their sMerits when they have run out of source merits. This may take some time when their is a paucity of good posters. Allowing them to keep their sMerits as a reservoir means they can continue to award if some event creates a high volume of great posts.

[Flying Hellfish]

I don't personally care if merit is "decayed" in some way.  Any system of decay will NOT prompt me personally to send more merit.  I don't have that much left (not a source) but my problem is always finding decent posts (that aren't repetitive).  

I'm not sure decaying them will have the desired result.  I would rather they go back to ground from whence they came then give them to shitposters (this is not an implication that the OP is a shitposter).

[Welsh]

Instead of decaying merit, perhaps having sMerit non sources haven't used go towards a pool that the merit sources can draw off of. Seems a shame that sMerit would go to waste when it could be put to good use for those who are willing to award good quality posts.

I don't personally care if merit is "decayed" in some way.  Any system of decay will NOT prompt me personally to send more merit.  I don't have that much left (not a source) but my problem is always finding decent posts (that aren't repetitive). 

I'm not sure decaying them will have the desired result.  I would rather they go back to ground from whence they came then give them to shitposters.

I have the opposite problem; Too many posts which require merit

[Flying Hellfish]

Instead of decaying merit, perhaps having sMerit non sources haven't used go towards a pool that the merit sources can draw off of. Seems a shame that sMerit would go to waste when it could be put to good use for those who are willing to award good quality posts.

I don't personally care if merit is "decayed" in some way.  Any system of decay will NOT prompt me personally to send more merit.  I don't have that much left (not a source) but my problem is always finding decent posts (that aren't repetitive).  

I'm not sure decaying them will have the desired result.  I would rather they go back to ground from whence they came then give them to shitposters.

I have the opposite problem; Too many posts which require merit

Decay -> merit pool is just a more complicated way to turn up the tap on source merits IMO.  Might as well just up source merit for guys like you that are running out of it!

Again I don't personally care if they're decayed or not but if they are then I won't have any merit to give in the event I do see a meritorious post, and I've given a little out so far and happily give merit when I see the need.  Decaying it will not force me to spend it.  It may put more into a pool but it would also limit my ability to use it as I see fit.

If I have it I will use it when I can, if I don't well I can't use it.  I say turn up source merit and leave regular users to use it how they see fit!

[Welsh]

Decay -> merit pool is just a more complicated way to turn up the tap on source merits IMO.  Might as well just up source merit for guys like you that are running out of it!

I think that's fair, and it merit going to waste shouldn't be too much of a problem when there's more merit sources covering different sections, local boards and timezones.

Again I don't personally care if they're decayed or not but if they are then I won't have any merit to give in the event I do see a meritorious post, and I've given a little out so far and happily give merit when I see the need.  Decaying it will not force me to spend it.  It may put more into a pool but it would also limit my ability to use it as I see fit.

If I have it I will use it when I can, if I don't well I can't use it.  I say turn up source merit and leave regular users to use it how they see fit!

Quite like that perspective.

[suchmoon]

OP, I think theymos' formula for the initial allocation was off by a factor of 2. I don't think any Legendary got more than 200 sMerits, Hero - 88 or 87, etc.

As to your idea - I'm fine with decay, at least for the initial airdrop. The new hard-earned merits can stay forever or have a long decay period, 6-12 months perhaps.

[coinlocket$]

OP, I think theymos' formula for the initial allocation was off by a factor of 2. I don't think any Legendary got more than 200 sMerits, Hero - 88 or 87, etc.

As to your idea - I'm fine with decay, at least for the initial airdrop. The new hard-earned merits can stay forever or have a long decay period, 6-12 months perhaps.

Was 400 you can read Theymos post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3342949.msg35131159#msg35131159

Your suggestion is maybe better for the decay for only the initial airdop and maybe EVEN a better solution is to give the decay sMerit at sources in propotion at how much they spent till now.

[suchmoon]

OP, I think theymos' formula for the initial allocation was off by a factor of 2. I don't think any Legendary got more than 200 sMerits, Hero - 88 or 87, etc.

As to your idea - I'm fine with decay, at least for the initial airdrop. The new hard-earned merits can stay forever or have a long decay period, 6-12 months perhaps.

Was 400 you can read Theymos post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3342949.msg35131159#msg35131159

Your suggestion is maybe better for the decay for only the initial airdop and maybe EVEN a better solution is to give the decay sMerit at sources in propotion at how much they spent till now.

I'm saying that theymos is wrong (blasphemy, I know) because I've been fully active during the year and only got 200.

Merit source replenishment is already tied to spending, so it's kinda sorta like decay. Merit source gets their sMerits replenished at the same rate they spend them, up to the maximum allocation. E.g. if a source has 100 sMerits per month allocated but spends only 40 sMerits - they will get only 40 back in the next 30 days.

[DdmrDdmr]

Implementing a consistent decaying system is not trivial. To be fair, it would need to be based on a FIFO algorithm, and although all the data to manage it is available, I don’t quite see the implementation effort taking place.

Perhaps a simple system would be that of reassigning (to other sources) the sMerit balance of accounts that have not had an sMerit transaction (in or out) of at least 1 sMerit in the last x months (2 for example as OP suggests).

It’s a bit like what happens if you leave a bank account or credit card with no movements in a given period of time. Normally these get cancelled. In this case, the sMerit balance would be reassigned to a merit source.

[suchmoon]

Implementing a consistent decaying system is not trivial. To be fair, it would need to be based on a FIFO algorithm, and although all the data to manage it is available, I don’t quite see the implementation effort taking place.

There is no FIFO needed. sMerits are fungible. A simple count over a date range should do it.

decay_smerits = smerits_received_until_2_months_ago - total_smerits_sent

If greater than zero, this would be the number of smerits to subtract from user's balance.

[coinlocket$]

~
Merit source replenishment is already tied to spending, so it's kinda sorta like decay. Merit source gets their sMerits replenished at the same rate they spend them, up to the maximum allocation. E.g. if a source has 100 sMerits per month allocated but spends only 40 sMerits - they will get only 40 back in the next 30 days.

I'm saying that the decay sMerit should be distributed on addition to the sMerit charge for one source.
For example if we remove 5000 sMerit for the decay this should be distributed to the sources with a percentage equal to the sMerit distributed up to that moment.
If Source X spends 100 sMerit in one day, after 1 month he has 100 sMerit (those spent) + (total decay/total number of sMerit spent in past for all sources * personal merit spent till that moment).
In this way we don't burn the airdroped sMerit but we have a better and probably a more honest redistribution.

[TheBeardedBaby]

There should be a save side for those who are not active all the time but coming from time to time.
If you have been online total for 14 days /can be in a year time span/ without giving merit then you loose 1 point for example and for every next week you are online and not rewording your smerit you loose X2

It's just an idea, so nobody gets hurt

[LoyceV]

I'm saying that the decay sMerit should be distributed on addition to the sMerit charge for one source.

But why?
Merit sources generate 18500 sMerit per 30 days. In the last week, 155344-150773=4571 sMerit was distributed. That extrapolates to 19590 per 30 days, including sMerit from other users than Merit sources. I think many merit sources don't empty their source.

For example if we remove 5000 sMerit for the decay this should be distributed to the sources with a percentage equal to the sMerit distributed up to that moment.

If the goal is to give a larger supply to Merit sources, it's much easier to just increase their monthly amount.

[coinlocket$]

~
But why?
Merit sources generate 18500 sMerit per 30 days. In the last week, 155344-150773=4571 sMerit was distributed. That extrapolates to 19590 per 30 days, including sMerit from other users than Merit sources. I think many merit sources don't empty their source.
~
If the goal is to give a larger supply to Merit sources, it's much easier to just increase their monthly amount.

This has 2 goals

• Increase the merit circulation on the forum, if sMerit will decay users are incentivized to use it, some users got 100 merit and used very close to 0 sMerit
• Reduce the abusing, I've reporterd over 100 people here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2896910.260 and if sMerit will decay it's will be easier to find abusers/alts cheaters cause they need to trade to alts in a shorter amount of time and not only when they need to rank up.(if decay is 2 month they can rank only 1 time cause they need activity)

My data are a little different but similar


As you can see we are in one situation where, some merit sourcers doesn't uses the sMerit or users doesn't users the sMerit and the decay can fix this situation when after the airdrop is really hard to get merit for some people.
Consider also that we can could simply lower the level of merit required to advance in rank after the end of the airdop, in my opinion by 20-30%, shitposters will never get, and abusers will always abuses BUT i like more the decay.

[tranthidung]

Each user has his/ her own favorite boards in the forum to join discussions, and the odds to find favorite, merit-deserved threads totally depend upon three components:
1) The strictness of readers: The stricter they are, the less probability they find threads which make them satisfied, then forcing them to send their sMerits away.
2) The quality of threads: The higher quality they are, the bigger opportunities to catch attention of other members and earn merits.
3) The level of abundant shitty posts in the forum: More shitty posts, less chances for users to find good ones because they simply been covered by shits.
Consequently, I don't see reasons to force users to send or automatically decay their sMerits.

[STT]

Won't limiting the spending of sMerits in itself cause people to farm their merits.

If someone told so many users that their sMerit will be decaysed by tomorrow, a lot will probably be more inclined to sell their sMerit immediately and get something from it (which is what we are really trying to avoid here).

My idea was to set 2 months for deadline.

People can be busy or ill for 2 months possibly.   Some people arent free until the summer or vice versa have far more free time in the winter months then otherwise.  Do we really want to penalise on the basis they werent around just now.    Im not sure I really agree with that though trying to increase circulation or value use is a good intention.  

I was immediately thinking of a Chinese currency experiment that was once conducted (if I remembered it right).   Every new note issued was time dated like a cheque and would not be valid like 6 months after, I think it had the effect of decreasing value approaching that deadline.   Merit does circulate here also but its also reducing as its spread so maybe this kind of deadline or time limation as proposed would be overkill and reduction is already built in.

Reason why bitcoin has success I think is its durability, it doesnt need tending to or constant management.  Once its part of the blockchain it can just be left until useful to the owner.  So again time limits would seem to go against that dynamic crypto is part of.

[trupero_uno]

~
But why?
Merit sources generate 18500 sMerit per 30 days. In the last week, 155344-150773=4571 sMerit was distributed. That extrapolates to 19590 per 30 days, including sMerit from other users than Merit sources. I think many merit sources don't empty their source.
~
If the goal is to give a larger supply to Merit sources, it's much easier to just increase their monthly amount.

This has 2 goals

• Increase the merit circulation on the forum, if sMerit will decay users are incentivized to use it, some users got 100 merit and used very close to 0 sMerit
• Reduce the abusing, I've reporterd over 100 people here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2896910.260 and if sMerit will decay it's will be easier to find abusers/alts cheaters cause they need to trade to alts in a shorter amount of time and not only when they need to rank up.(if decay is 2 month they can rank only 1 time cause they need activity)

My data are a little different but similar


As you can see we are in one situation where, some merit sourcers doesn't uses the sMerit or users doesn't users the sMerit and the decay can fix this situation when after the airdrop is really hard to get merit for some people.
Consider also that we can could simply lower the level of merit required to advance in rank after the end of the airdop, in my opinion by 20-30%, shitposters will never get, and abusers will always abuses BUT i like more the decay.

I am not sure if sMerit decay to drive merit circulation in the forum, if the issue is account farming with the sMerit then someone is able to distribute the sMerit into their alt account before the limit time. After that, the sMerit circulation will drop significantly because the remaining sMerit just on merit source.