post your reasons loyce why you think 250 earned merits is better than 100 + 1500 activity or fuck off and copy more merit stats crap to merit board in your own threads.
This would make sense if the activity was given for useful posts in a few limited sections of the forum. Until I not see than 1,000-1,500 bounty-reports or flooding not about than, better than 250 earned merit?
And if you make a limit of 100 merits, not 250 merits - it is easy to abuse. 2 Legendary account which could fill activity shitposting in sections off-topic and bounty (and who received 200 sMerit) will be sent from one account to another at 100 merits - and here you have 2 votes to vote.
We as yet have no definition of "useful post" of course if we can start making sure MERIT goes to net positive posts (which I attempted to start helping to initiate with the "what makes defines a net positive post " thread. That would be excellent and a real meritocracy could develop here. Although even good posts do not = trust in a financial sense to me anyway. I expect the very best and most dangerous scammers can present themselves very well here and make great posts far exceeding many honest members who will get a lot less merit even in a true meritocracy.
Activity is again useful for nothing really other than
1. a minimum measure of time to reach it
2. a minimum amount of activity within that time frame.
we must not apply any other meaning to it really. Time/activity though is an important factor in trust if we don't have direct trading experience with the person or can be sure they have conducted real trades with others.
I am not sure what 1500 or 2000 activity is possible in with optimal activity (minimal activity) perhaps 4 years. So let's just say that is true.
1. 4 years of history to examine
2. 4 years minimum to recover to that level if you get blacklisted for misuse of DT also will need to get the 100 earned merits all over again. I mean you could add another requirement saying hero and legends only for a greater penalty if you think you can bot to high activity and get some merit abuse to get to 100. Therefore the real earned merit once you get blacklisted to recover is going to be a LONG ROAD AHEAD.
100 earned merits (unless you are here cycling it on meta on the merit-merry-go-round is not something that is that easy. Some excellent members and FAR smarter members here have only 30 earned merits than 95% of all the top 200 merit holders. Also many of those have had far larger sums of money under their control and never scammed and always appeared squeaky clean. If they are part of alt communities or from the alt board at all then 100 earned merits is likely to be worth x10 x20 x30 more than on meta board.
Also we are not saying who can be on DT we are saying who can hold the key nomination positions for DT. So others can be on the DT system anyway if nominated by them and meet the other threshold votes.
More persons or many more unconnected persons make it harder to collude and make it a fairer system. You do not want persons that all share the same merit circle and same political views with regard the board who are all familiar with each other and all posting to back each other up at any time one is singled out for legitimate criticism -- who will not even look at a proven lie and admit it is a lie. Groups within those few that have been implicated in the SAME SCAMS AND SCHEMES working together...You could not really come up with a bunch that observably collude more that have more dirt on them than large swathes of DT1. To call it a decentralised TRUST system at this stage is quite strange and almost ironic. It's like anti trust system or anti christ system actually. Their main justification is they stop "other" scammers. Well fine but be nice to have it decentralised with some that are not proven liars,abusers of trust and greedy sneaky sock puppets shilling - - let's have a bunch of people that are totally unfamiliar with those people and not connected at all to hold them in check shall we if they are allowed to even stay there for now.
If you have collusion on the key positions the entire system collapses into a run away gang because there is nothing to keep them in check. However take that away from them and what you get is a system where DT will not abuse their position because unlike the gang we have now that will endorse and sanction the abuse or too scared to stand out from the gang... you will have a diverse group all much less giving a shit if they are part of the "gang" we have now and if they see abuse they will say fuck off that is abuse removed it or will will exclude you and also balance that red. They will also likely include other trust worthy persons and not just their proven ass kissers and acolytes.
There is simply no point having a decentralised system that starts completely centralised with a group of entrenched colluders (observably in many ways) and then you hand those colluders the key positions to nominate new persons and they also have the means (merit sources) to either recruit or withhold the threshold merits for others to join. So they can cherry pick who should be there or not. I mean it is obviously not going to work or it is ever going to work it will take a VERY long while.
Obviously it is a complex system and you would likely need a serious game theory boffin to create a self sustaining decentralised system that can maintain anything like a fair and equal posting environment whilst kicking off scammers in an optimal way. It may even be impossible on an anonymous forum where people can have multiple sock puppets.
However TIME can not be gamed so adding a minimum TIME penalty for discovered and obvious abuse it better than not having it surely and the fact that it will bring into these key positions persons not obviously already in the colluding gang we have now.
Merit is actually the key here DT is secondary now since Merit is trust too apparently.
Of course you need a specific mandate for both with clear and detailed criteria and definition for merit and trust. You also need strict and swift punishment for those ignoring this framework. Just the threat of getting blacklisted or worse for abuse will be enough that it needs only a little correcting now and then.
Who will risk blacklisting of a 4 year old account and I say also sig ban for 3 years for abusing a position of trust and responsibility and in serious cases a ton of red for them too. That is pretty much like a ban for most greedy and selfish users.
Again anyone with proven dark incidents in their history that make them dishonest or likely to scam need to be blacklisted anyway. Why would you have persons in trust positions that are proven already untrustworthy it makes zero sense.
This is not about DT only the key nominating positions in DT. That is what is making it pseudo decentralised when really you could not have take a forum of this size and made it MORE centralised. Start examining their post histories, their merit fans recipients, the DT includes their DT EXCLUSIONS (even worse) all their interactions on this board. This is a centralised pot of scum for the most part. DO some digging it is all there just put in some effort and examine their past histories.
You find them supporting some of the most unfair and scam like projects here, you will find them implicated in all kinds of extortion and other foul deeds, you will find them creating puppet accounts to spam for btc dust whilst lecturing others on financial shit posting. Supporting these kinds of people willingly whilst red trusting people for promoting "possible scams" unwilling to even say a proven lie is a lie. This is a host of scum I am telling you all. These are facts and are there in black and white.
Then go examine MY OWN entire post history you will find me NEVER scamming, NEVER being greedy , NEVER refusing to help others who are being bullied when i don't even know them, ALWAYS finding real scams and meeting them head on against tons of scammers and scam pumpers in public not hiding away snitching on them.. ALWAYS fighting for fairer distributions (see the huge arguments on Byteball when it launched i was the only person saying make it fairer for new people with no btc or not much btc) ALWAYS sharing all my research on great projects with others BEFORE it goes up massively so others can benefit also from this research. Getting thanked my many for making them super wealthy in public and in PMs.
Here I am telling you to make the systems of control fairer so everyone gets equal opportunity and free speech is not crushed and I AM THE BAD GUY NOW?? OH REALLY? and I am just doing it all for my selfish gain you say??
