The new rule (1 Merit for Jr. Member) is already reducing spam

[Lordhermes]

I clicked on top posters, newbie, brandnew and their posts are in Off-topic. Why do they post much in Off-topic? 150, 200, 300 posts in 7 days. 

Because they think their posts aren't helping enough, I have always think that posts in off topics are junkies types of posts, spamming ones that has no meaning in contributing to someone crypto life. How can a newbie user would ask 'which colour of wears you put on today, what can you gain from such discussion, so they probably feel they can post what comes to their mind in less constructive maybe one line sentence without mods deleting their shit posts. I can't even remember the last time I visited off topic section and I don't think I would.

[1714489557]

1714489557

[1714489557]

1714489557

[The Sceptical Chymist]

We're currently at -87.1% of the 353813 weekly posts mentioned when I started this topic. I guess this result is a combination of the Merit system and the demise of ICOs.

WOW.  That drop is astonishing to me--and the strange thing is that I hadn't noticed it happening except for two things:  

1) I have observed a decrease in shitposts in sections like Economics, which was getting pretty bad for a while.  I haven't been reading/posting much in Bitcoin Discussion, but I would think the quality has improved...?  
2) I've noticed that there haven't been as many new threads catching my attention for at least the last few months.  There's been much less drama, but there has also been a reduction in the number of good threads that can at least spark a discussion.

I thought I was losing interest in the forum for a while there, but now I'm starting to think that it might not be anything to do with me.  

Which leads us to another interesting question: is the Merit system responsible for the demise of ICOs?

I doubt it, but I agree that it would be an interesting question to answer with data and some research.  The reason I doubt it is because I think ICOs were doomed from the start.  None of the projects solved any real life problems, and while the tokens may have made a profit for some traders, there was no good reason for that era of crypto to have existed at all IMO. 

I think people wised up to the fact that most new ICOs were scams.  Bounty hunters weren't getting paid, or they were hit with KYC requirements at the end, and it was a 3-ring shit circus toward the end. 

[Timelord2067]

I'd bet there's some spikes/ steady rise during the first few months

It doesn't sound like it - according to LoyceV's post just after mine there hasn't been a noticeable spike upwards this year.  I've always said the merit system is a good thing, but the concentration of merit sources is not a good thing (which is a discussion for another thread)

[casperBGD]

I'd bet there's some spikes/ steady rise during the first few months

It doesn't sound like it - according to LoyceV's post just after mine there hasn't been a noticeable spike upwards this year.  I've always said the merit system is a good thing, but the concentration of merit sources is not a good thing (which is a discussion for another thread)

what do you mean by "concentration of merit sources"
yeah, i do also think that having some "merit sources" is not good thing, if they are not trust-less, and they could not be trust-less, they have to have their own bias in rewarding users, since you reward posts that you find helpful, and that is different from each point of view, what one could find helpful, other person may not, but it is better with merit system, than without it

[Timelord2067]

what do you mean by "concentration of merit sources"
yeah, i do also think that having some "merit sources" is not good thing, if they are not trust-less, and they could not be trust-less, they have to have their own bias in rewarding users, since you reward posts that you find helpful, and that is different from each point of view, what one could find helpful, other person may not, but it is better with merit system, than without it

I don't know the number, but my understanding is it's around one hundred users are merit sources.  (feel free to quote to me the true number).  Perhaps there should be more merit sources that have a far lesser number of merits each week/month at their disposal (and overly generous merit giving should be heavily discouraged).

if they are not trust-less, and they could not be trust-less

Nope, never said that.  Not even implied that.

[LoyceV]

I don't know the number, but my understanding is it's around one hundred users are merit sources.

There are 97 merit sources with a total merit generation of up to 21171 sMerit per 30 days.

Perhaps there should be more merit sources that have a far lesser number of merits each week/month

A practical limit is the amount of time theymos wants to invest to assign new Merit sources, and probably check how they're doing once in a while.
I think the main goal of the Merit system has been reached: there's much less spam.

[Timelord2067]

I don't know the number, but my understanding is it's around one hundred users are merit sources.

There are 97 merit sources with a total merit generation of up to 21171 sMerit per 30 days.

As always, thanks for the information. 

Perhaps there should be more merit sources that have a far lesser number of merits each week/month

A practical limit is the amount of time theymos wants to invest to assign new Merit sources, and probably check how they're doing once in a while.
I think the main goal of the Merit system has been reached: there's much less spam.

That's a fair call.