1) you are suggesting that low earning of merits mean that active users "have issues" with the post quality of members merely because they are not meriting them at a certain rate per period
I meant just part of them. People who run their services also have good odds to get merits, too. Good posters, and good service providers.
It means part of more than 93% (active users) have issues with their post quality.
and 2) you are indicating that there is some kind of basis that the number of merits earned should be higher depending on the rank of the member per period of time.
It is just my example, JJG. People can take advantage of those proposed requirements to attack Legendary users, by hoarding their smerits for lower ranks, and ignore Legendary users. But, there are big cycle of merits between top merit receivers and merit senders, so good Legendary users don't have issues with that. Only low quality users will get troubles. In the same time, lower rank users will struggle themselves to move up to Legendary rank or lower ranks, from Senior Members to Hero Members. In case they to the aforementioned attack, they won't get anything back, because they can not move up to high ranks, themselves.
Therefore a legendary member, because of his/her rank, should be earning more merits per given period of time, merely because he is a legendary member... Seems like a bit arbitrary reasoning, expectations and requirements.
Those proposed figures are not best ones, just example, but I think it is logically to say Legendary users will know better about bitcoin, crypto, forum, to earn merits than newbies, members, or Full members.
