The DT system needs to change.

[KingsDen]

I started using the trust system few weeks ago after being convinced by 1miau and LoyceV. Before creating my Default Trust, I raised a concern about my fear about the trust system. Let me quote part of the thread I created.

My fear about the trust system which is in accordance with 1miau: If a group of scammers upto 50 persons are working together and one among the 50 gets a positive trust. He can in turn trust the remaining 49 scam users and they inturn trust one another. Then, the trust system would be compromised.

I asked The question due to my then layman's understanding of the trust system, but I was told that the system is well checked and any attempt to manipulate will have the user being excluded from DT by theymos. I proceeded to creating my custom list.

Surprisingly, few weeks after creating my trust list, a renowned campaign manager and a reputable member of this forum alleged emptied his trust list in protest of the current trust system. I quote him

I decided to take a bit of advice and clear my trust list. dkbit98 made a suggestion and while I do not think it would force theymos to do anything, I do think DT isn't really a prestigious position to hold any longer. Also a bit tired of the drama and manipulation that is seen by users when it comes to DT.I may change my mind later but for now my trust list is empty. My distrust list still exists for now.

The words I put in italics and underline are strong words.
Now, I have seen what other members have to say about this, as some have also emptied their trust list in same protest.
Then LoyceV isn't in support of emptying one's trust list, as it will make the system more vulnerable. I also had to mention 1miau to know his opinion, because it matters to me in as much as it's about trust. Then, I am yet to see anyone stating categorically that the Trust system isn't or cannot be manipulated. Is there truly some manipulations behind the scene?
I had to revisit theymos thread about Default Trust changes and read carefully what he said about the trust system as a tool for retaliation. I'm thinking if the retaliation and the politics theymos mentioned is what is playing out.
Could it be that the reason of the uproar is that once a centralized and prestigious trust power is now decentralized to give power to even a newbie to be on the DT?
Well, see what theymos said about the Trust changes.

A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost. If someone is obviously scamming, then any retaliatory rating should not last long due to the DT1 "voting", but if you negative-rate someone for generally disliking them, then their retaliation against you may stick. In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle.

This is inspired partly by something that David Friedman said once (though I can't find the quote), that one of the requirements for a peaceful society is the credible threat of retaliation in case you are harmed. As DT was organized previously, one or both sides of a dispute was usually unable to effectively retaliate to a rating, at least via the trust system itself. Now your ability to effectively retaliate will tend to increase as you become more established in the community, which should discourage abuse generally. (Or that's the idea, at least.)

All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have. Also, it's best to make your own custom list, and you must do this if you want to be on DT1.

I am never completely tied to anything, but let's try this for at least a few months and see how it works.

However, in theymos last paragraph, he implied that the Default Trust changes is in trial mode for some months. I am keen to see what he will likely come out with after these dramas and protests.

[1713431643]

1713431643

[1713431643]

1713431643

[1713431643]

1713431643

[suchmoon]

Any such forum "system" is about as good as its members make it. theymos wanted wider representation in DT and he's probably unlikely to make it more restrictive, but with or without such change its ultimately up to the members, mainly DT1 members, to make the best use of the system.

Back at the start of this new vote-based DT system I used to think that the level of personal responsibility (for including/excluding DT2 members) exhibited by the old DT1 would improve in the new one but that obviously didn't happen. There is a huge passive majority of DT1 members who don't seem to care whom they include or how the trust system is used. And even if the more active minority tries to mitigate some of the garbage (e.g. by excluding self-scratchers) it doesn't really work that well due to the lottery.

Don't get me wrong, I support the idea of making it more difficult to get into DT (DT2 in particular) but I think it's a band aid for a broken leg.

I still think "protesting" against DefaultTrust by emptying your Trust list is counter-effective.

^This!

@yahoo62278 and @dkbit98, I really hope both of you will reconsider.  I understand your rationale, and often I think being in DT1 is not worth the headache.  But that headache is exactly why we need people like you; rational, thoughtful, restrained individuals to counter balance those who revel in the power.  If more people like you quit DT you'll be leaving the trust system to the abusers.

@suchmoon, we need you back too!

I ain't gone nowhere

As for "protesting", I'd argue that if someone doesn't have time and/or interest to keep up with the trust system or fundamentally disagrees with how the system is used, then getting blacklisted or otherwise removed from it is better that just leaving their trust lists unmaintained or going against the flow with a huge red trail of drama.

[Igebotz]

Surprisingly, few weeks after creating my trust list, a renowned campaign manager and a reputable member of this forum alleged emptied his trust list in protest of the current trust system.

One or two people emptying their trust lists is like a drop into the ocean it has no effect on the DT system. Just so you know, a new set of 100+ DT1 were elected last week to the already existing DT1 list, and that election alone created more than 200+ DT2 members, so even if 100 people boycotted the DT system today, it would not break the system.

When people become powerless to a system, they tend to break it; the same people who have been manipulating the system for a long time are the same people who are begging for a change because they had a taste of their own medicine.

There has been a lot of drama on the reputation board, I expected this type of drama at the end; the more people who join the DT, the less powerful they become and the better the DT system becomes..

Then LoyceV isn't in support of emptying one's trust list, as it will make the system more vulnerable. I also had to mention 1miau to know his opinion, because it matters to me in as much as it's about trust. Then, I am yet to see anyone stating categorically that the Trust system isn't or cannot be manipulated. Is there truly some manipulations behind the scene?

It CAN be manipulated and has been a weapon between the forum's elites for years now, it's a "scratch my back I scratch your back system now" when a certain elite member of the DT gang got flaged and red tagged a few weeks ago all his DT gangs were busy twerking in our PMs trying to manipulate a valid negative feedbacks so yes there is a lot going on behind the scenes, when you become a DT you will see the clear picture.

However, in theymos last paragraph, he implied that the Default Trust changes is in trial mode for some months. I am keen to see what he will likely come out with after these dramas and protests.

theymos is more active and involved in the DT system than you think; he is aware of all the manipulation and drama going on; he reshuffles and elects the DT1 members every week; and if he sees a need for any change in DT, he will propose it first.

[Welsh]

This debate is getting strong now but I don't see any reply of theymos on this discussion on any of these threads. This is the most sensitive matter and I hope he will tell his point of view on this matter. No matter how many proposals we have, if theymos is not interested nothing is going to change.

I believe theymos has hinted in the past that they weren't quite happy with how the trust system was working. I think all of us can probably agree on that though. It's fixing it that is the problem. It's not an easy task, as a system that remains decentralised, and not moderated for the most part, is always going to bring problems. Especially, when you have a community which is rather divided on a lot of things. That's not saying our community is bad though, it's just what happens when there's a large amount of people involved in discussions.

Users will step on each others toes a little bit, and they'll have differences of opinion. That much is expected, but it's mitigating the influence one person has, at least enough to not cause a snowball effect. However, you want an individual to have enough of a voice to be able to influence things in a good way.

There's been several suggestions which I believe would help in the overall picture, but by no means would it solve every problem we have, and likely there isn't a perfect solution. If I was to wager a guess, and this isn't based on anything other than previous public comments theymos has made in the past regarding to the trust system, I would expect it to change in the future, its just a question of when, and how.

[cryptoaddictchie]

I believe theymos has hinted in the past that they weren't quite happy with how the trust system was working. I think all of us can probably agree on that though. It's fixing it that is the problem. It's not an easy task, as a system that remains decentralised, and not moderated for the most part, is always going to bring problems. Especially, when you have a community which is rather divided on a lot of things.

Because theres an abuse maybe on it. If the system isnt good then change it the way they think its fit for the forum. If DT system is remove on the forum, is there gonna be a chaos or riot on forum members? Maybe its better to abolish it if its not healthy anymore. But surely there will be a resistance for that.  But in your opinion, how important is this DT system @welsh? I think some considered it as form of rank, respect, reputation, when you are in the DT1 or DT2 but does it should work like that in terms of discussion. I believe the one with right explanation regardless of his rank, dt or not should be respected and acknowledge.

[Welsh]

But in your opinion, how important is this DT system @welsh? I think some considered it as form of rank, respect, reputation, when you are in the DT1 or DT2 but does it should work like that in terms of discussion. I believe the one with right explanation regardless of his rank, dt or not should be respected and acknowledge.

Personally, I don't use it much. I think over time it has lost its importance. There's been a lot of internal feuds which have some what discredited the system. However, an argument to be had is its our responsibility as a community to sort of drop those users off the list if they're having such a negative influence. However, that's the problem the community is split, divided. Some of us agree with one side, and then others agree with the other side. I generally see points made from both parties, and hence why I don't get involved.

I think the implementation of the trust system was a decent one, but its always going to have problems when we've got such personalities in the community. I also think that the trust system isn't being used for its intended purpose, and that's trading. Its become X doesn't like Y, and sort of lost meaning. I made the decision a while ago, that going forward I'd only use the trust system as a way of rating transactions that I've made on the forum, and throw the reputational side out the window, unless there was a particular problematic case. However, flags were introduced to kind of take over from that, at least somewhat.

I think it would be beneficial to have some sort of trust system, but I'm of the opinion that the current implementation has been lessened of importance over time. That's not a fault of anyone mind, that's just how these types of systems often work.

We are always going to have internal feuds, and I'm not saying that they aren't warranted at times either. The issue is when those internal feuds spill on over to a system used by the majority of the community, that might not be particularly interested in that feud, but ultimately get influenced by it because of the impact it has had.

However, my personal opinion doesn't have any more weight than the next user. Users are absolutely going to be in disagreement on me with the above, and that's their right. I guess what I'm getting at is to implement a system without disadvantages like above is going to be incredibly difficult, because even if you do, not everyone is going to support it anyway.

[cryptoaddictchie]

We are always going to have internal feuds, and I'm not saying that they aren't warranted at times either. The issue is when those internal feuds spill on over to a system used by the majority of the community, that might not be particularly interested in that feud, but ultimately get influenced by it because of the impact it has had.

Thats the thing. Internal feud or somehow reputation to reputation issue has rises sometime which affect the trust system as a whole. Of course others value its important having a role on DT but some never really care for it either they are in or not. The impact it will create will spill and obviously gonna affect with the general concept of trust system.

I made the decision a while ago, that going forward I'd only use the trust system as a way of rating transactions that I've made on the forum, and throw the reputational side out the window, unless there was a particular problematic case. However, flags were introduced to kind of take over from that, at least somewhat.

This is should be used accordingly. Reputation shouldnt be based if not on the dt list. I would give respect to a number 1 dt which have equal respect to a lower rank regardless the difference.

[Welsh]

This is should be used accordingly. Reputation shouldnt be based if not on the dt list. I would give respect to a number 1 dt which have equal respect to a lower rank regardless the difference.

I have respect for quite a few users outside of DefaultTrust, and I don't use DefaultTrust as a way of gauging someone integrity or trustworthiness I don't think many others will agree, but I see the DefaultTrust as a way of flagging up issues you might have not been aware of. For example, it's almost impossible to be in every section, and know what's going on for the average user, so they might miss out on some of the scams going around or what x user did. So, the DefaultTrust is a way of flagging up issues. However, I wouldn't be against the flag system replacing the trust system with some adjustments. Maybe, reducing the amount of influence that users have individually would be a nice thing to see.

I'm spit balling just like everyone else though. I'm not sure I know the answer to fixing it to that the majority are happy.

[stompix]

You like to be categorical.

Really? I always thought I leave enough room for a debate, well, noted.

Where does the dictionary say that 500 is not an oligarchy and 250 is? 

government by the few
a government in which a small group

Limiting the number means closer to an oligarchy, common, let's be real, having half of the people deciding means what it means, fewer people in charge of deciding, even if it's not an oligarchy is definitely closer to one that having 2500 is.
Again, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm not saying this system is good, just that it is what it is, I do not think it's normal for just one moron to have the launch codes of a nuclear missile, I don't think it's a great idea to hold a national referendum each year if we need to drop a bomb or not! Seeing how the guy that wrote the scam report format got arrested and jailed for credit card fraud, I'm really curious in two years how we will look at this case that caused it all and who is wrong or who is right.

As suchmoon said, the system is as good as we make it, and I'll add that if people are complete jerks they will be able to make it as bad as it can get, no matter the design, just like the drama you see now is not caused by the system, is caused by the ones using it.

[dkbit98]

I still think "protesting" against DefaultTrust by emptying your Trust list is counter-effective. It may be better to remove DefaultTrust and leave your custom list.

I am sure that all members (including you) won't clear their trust list, so I don't worry at all about forum, and if you think this is very important for you than continue business as usual.
You keep telling people to create custom trust list but I don't see much benefit from that, except maybe for abusers.

@yahoo62278 and @dkbit98, I really hope both of you will reconsider.  

Nah, honestly I am sick of all the drama some DT wannabes are creating recently, so I won't be coming back until I see some changes.
I am sure you will do just fine without me, and I don't consider I did anything really important in this forum, but I am not going anywhere.

I believe theymos has hinted in the past that they weren't quite happy with how the trust system was working. I think all of us can probably agree on that though.

Be a good sport and consider telling theymos to consider reducing number of DT members, especially DT2 inclusions.
I would appreciate if anyone could create good new topic with realistic suggestions for improving overall DT, for start this could be collection of all previously made suggestions.
I am aware that perfect system will never be created, but let's start making small changes and move in good direction.

[Lafu]

However, in theymos last paragraph, he implied that the Default Trust changes is in trial mode for some months. I am keen to see what he will likely come out with after these dramas and protests.

The trail mode is already over as this is now 3 years old .
There is and was drama before the Trust system has changed , it was even more drama as now.
In my opinion the protest and empty the Trust List will change nothing and this makes it even more worst when the next monthly DT update will come.
Even when there will be a upgrade or update on the Trust system it will takes not long and the next will be complaining and the drama will start from scratch.

[Welsh]

Be a good sport and consider telling theymos to consider reducing number of DT members, especially DT2 inclusions.
I would appreciate if anyone could create good new topic with realistic suggestions for improving overall DT, for start this could be collection of all previously made suggestions.
I am aware that perfect system will never be created, but let's start making small changes and move in good direction.

Haha, like I said I don't have any more influence than anyone else. In fact, theymos is far more likely to listen to a community in support of something, rather than listen to a singular user, I would've thought, unless they already agree with that user. I might be wrong there, but I guess it's much more likely that the community would get the attention of theymos, especially from a urgency point of view. 

I do think we'll see adjustments given time though. I'm not suggesting that we don't do anything because we'll never get the perfect system, I'm just saying that these things need to be considered carefully. Although, I'm probably in support of the most popular suggestion being made. I don't see too many drawbacks to it, and think it'll make a little difference.

[KingsDen]

When people become powerless to a system, they tend to break it; the same people who have been manipulating the system for a long time are the same people who are begging for a change because they had a taste of their own medicine.

There has been a lot of drama on the reputation board, I expected this type of drama at the end; the more people who join the DT, the less powerful they become and the better the DT system becomes..

You made a whole lots of sense here and I strongly believe that what you stated is what theymos also stand for. In as much as the voting system remains correct and in the hands of the admin, I think we are safe. I have been around not for so long, so I can't just imagine how many DT1 and DT2 were there. But I know the fewer the DT members, the stronger the system and the more easy for it to be hijacked and turned into a gang or a cult.
Again, if the larger the DT members, the less powerful and maybe effective it will be. It therefore means that everyone will have to read the feedback on profiles and decide what exactly to believe or not.

[1miau]

Then LoyceV isn't in support of emptying one's trust list, as it will make the system more vulnerable. I also had to mention 1miau to know his opinion, because it matters to me in as much as it's about trust. Then, I am yet to see anyone stating categorically that the Trust system isn't or cannot be manipulated. Is there truly some manipulations behind the scene?

Many of the changes brought by theymos few years ago were very good ones in my opinion. DT has been very centralized before and in my opinion, the current trust system is more aligned with Bitcoin's decentralized approach. It should be possible for everyone to have a vote in DT, while scammers or trolls can still be restricted quickly, therefore it was a good decision from theymos.
A decentralized DT will also encourage participation.


I'm in favor to change DT1 inclusions to determine DT2 and increase required inclusions.
Only one DT1 inclusion can be easily abused and 2 would be better for sure.
If there's still abuse, present in on Reputation and DT will review it. That's DT's job.

But I'm not sure if clearing our trust lists to achieve changes is really necessary.
Why can't our moderation simply give a statement if they are in favor of changing requirements?
Creating a new topic on Meta should be enough but since lots of things are taking extremely long, like our new forum design, I'm also clueless what to do.

Emptying our trust lists just to get a response from the moderation is a bit too much.
We all know the trolls are still around and they can activate their accounts very fast. In case of an attemped hostile takeover we would have more drama than with our status quo.
Trolls, scammers, sigspammers are just waiting to get back to their business.
It's a shame anyway that some accounts are spamming for 1xbit while being negged...
If there's a tipping point and they can take over DT, we might need a reset from theymos.
Similar for some centralized shitcoins.  

I'm not in support to risk it, while I'm still for more required inclusions.


Since DT is discussed here, I would like to add some more points:

- Bring back a column for "risked BTC amount". It's very useful and maybe some people might give out "nice guy" feedbacks less leniently.
- The current space for feedback text is not enough. We can barely describe and justify some trusts. It's currently limited to 3 rows, can't we make it at least 5 rows? I know it got abused by trolls when they posted walls of 50 rows or more but 3 rows are almost nothing. Or increase available rows per account rank. Up to Full Member get 3 rows, Sr. Member 4 rows, Hero 5 rows and Legendary 6 rows...
- Increase limits from 10 / 250 Merit to 50 / 500 Merit. Merit scores are increasing daily and are far away from the meaning when DT was changed. 10 Merit is obtainable by almost every troll account very quickly.

But I know the fewer the DT members, the stronger the system and the more easy for it to be hijacked and turned into a gang or a cult.

Again, if the larger the DT members, the less powerful and maybe effective it will be.

For a more decentralized system, each DT account will have less power, which is effectively better in case someone turns out to be a scammer / hacked.
I would compare it to Bitcoin and Shitcoins:
Bitcoin is very decentralized, many nodes and even miners.
Shitcoins are reliant on a few (trusted) nodes, often hand picked by the developers. Very centralized.
A few nodes going offline / malicious are a big problem. Take Solana how often it crashed down.

Effective is for me, to weed out scammers while enabling broad participation of as many accounts as possible without DT getting easily compromised.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

About 27 users joined that poll, which is a low number to generalize the opinion of the community.

That's likely because most people who really care about this issue have been around a long time and realize how futile polls are.  

At this point I'm almost indifferent about the trust system as a whole.  It's so broken, so unnecessarily complicated with flags and red/green/black feedback, trust lists, default trust, etc., that I just don't care anymore.  I'm not sure if Theymos designed it or what, but the whole thing is like some Rube Goldberg contraption an engineering student made as a project to impress his teacher.

Plus I'm pretty sure nothing works as intended anymore.  Bounty managers don't even care if their participants have red trust, and that ought to tell you something about how the system is viewed by the average user who doesn't give a flying fuck about bitcointalk.  

I think I'm going to clear my trust list tonight.  Just wipe it clean.

There is a huge passive majority of DT1 members who don't seem to care whom they include or how the trust system is used. And even if the more active minority tries to mitigate some of the garbage (e.g. by excluding self-scratchers) it doesn't really work that well due to the lottery.

Don't get me wrong, I support the idea of making it more difficult to get into DT (DT2 in particular) but I think it's a band aid for a broken leg.

Hear, hear, my dear.

[LoyceV]

Plus I'm pretty sure nothing works as intended anymore.  Bounty managers don't even care if their participants have red trust, and that ought to tell you something about how the system is viewed by the average user who doesn't give a flying fuck about bitcointalk.

The real question is: why does Bitcointalk give a flying fuck about bounty spammers? It's allowed to spam millions of links to spam on social media.
And as long as they don't pay something that has real value, but only in tokens they made up by themselves, spamming has no real cost and only benefits to them.

I think I'm going to clear my trust list tonight.  Just wipe it clean.

If you change your mind later on, I have a backup

[Poker Player]

The real question is: why does Bitcointalk give a flying fuck about bounty spammers? It's allowed to spam millions of links to spam on social media.
And as long as they don't pay something that has real value, but only in tokens they made up by themselves, spamming has no real cost and only benefits to them.

I understand that the question is rhetorical, as it seems to me that this has already been discussed many times, and I think it is because management prefers that this traffic stays here rather than go elsewhere.

If it were as simple as if they go elsewhere, the rest of the traffic remains the same and therefore there is more net quality in the forum, it would be desirable, but you do not know if it will reduce the overall traffic of the forum even more.

[dragonvslinux]

- Increase limits from 10 / 250 Merit to 50 / 500 Merit. Merit scores are increasing daily and are far away from the meaning when DT was changed. 10 Merit is obtainable by almost every troll account very quickly.

I was thinking very similar recently, based on how many users had previously earnt 10 and 250 merits compared to how many have now. I was trying to find data/charts on how many users had earnt this amount when DT1 eligibility had changed, in order to propose what it should be now, so that DT1 eligibility would remain at the same "difficulty" level. I'd guess there are as many users who have now earnt 100 as 10 back then, and 500 for those who earnt 250, but that's just a guess. It'd be interesting to see how many users would remain eligible if the requirements for DT1 were increased from 10/250 to 100/500 for example. I don't think it would remove that many users, but simply return the number of eligible DT1 members back to how many there were originally - at least that's the idea and theory for increasing the difficulty.

If anyone can point me towards data earnt user-merit data from DT1 changes it'd be appreciated. While I agree with other proposals such as DT2 requires +2 strength, I think fundamentally DT1 eligibility becoming easier and easier as time goes on (with more merit distributed) will forever be a worsening issue until it's resolved. The eligibility difficulty should be maintained in my opinion, not lowered over time.

[LoyceV]

I was thinking very similar recently, based on how many users had previously earnt 10 and 250 merits compared to how many have now. I was trying to find data/charts on how many users had earnt this amount when DT1 eligibility had changed, in order to propose what it should be now, so that DT1 eligibility would remain at the same "difficulty" level.

I have data on eligibility: https://loyce.club/trust/ranking/
This was archived a month after theymos implemented the current DefaultTrust system: https://archive.ph/PmrZn

It'd be interesting to see how many users would remain eligible if the requirements for DT1 were increased from 10/250 to 100/500 for example.

From what I remember, it was intended to have low restrictions, so users who joined later still stand a chance.

If anyone can point me towards data earnt user-merit data from DT1 changes it'd be appreciated.

My overview of Merit earned (on very large HTML pages) starts here. But it may be easier to just parse the data from merit.all.txt (31 MB). This file has every Merit transaction and the exact time.

The eligibility difficulty should be maintained in my opinion, not lowered over time.

It's maintained for new users, and gets easier for older users. The alternative would be that new users barely stand a chance (kinda like how they can't catch up on Activity).

[dragonvslinux]

I was thinking very similar recently, based on how many users had previously earnt 10 and 250 merits compared to how many have now. I was trying to find data/charts on how many users had earnt this amount when DT1 eligibility had changed, in order to propose what it should be now, so that DT1 eligibility would remain at the same "difficulty" level.

I have data on eligibility: https://loyce.club/trust/ranking/
This was archived a month after theymos implemented the current DefaultTrust system: https://archive.ph/PmrZn

Thanks for the info, that archive from 2019 is a useful start here. Notably there were many less users eligible back then, many less than I thought.

It'd be interesting to see how many users would remain eligible if the requirements for DT1 were increased from 10/250 to 100/500 for example.

From what I remember, it was intended to have low restrictions, so users who joined later still stand a chance.

I don't think I'm suggesting for it to have high restrictions by comparison, simply as low restrictions, as opposed to much lower restrictions (as is the case now). For example if there were 700 members who had earnt 10 merit back in January 2019, and now there are 700+ members* who have now earnt 100 merit, then the restrictions would be just as low as they previously were wouldn't they?

If anyone can point me towards data earnt user-merit data from DT1 changes it'd be appreciated.

My overview of Merit earned (on very large HTML pages) starts here. But it may be easier to just parse the data from merit.all.txt (31 MB). This file has every Merit transaction and the exact time.

Thanks again, but was hoping there would already be some charts available for amount of merit earnt by users here, without having to compile the data myself  

*Similar to the chart from here (referenced above), but if it were to include all merit earnt by users, not just for rank requirements, hence it's far from accurate.

The eligibility difficulty should be maintained in my opinion, not lowered over time.

It's maintained for new users, and gets easier for older users. The alternative would be that new users barely stand a chance (kinda like how they can't catch up on Activity).

I see your point, sort of, but the issue here is that DT1 eligibility therefore becomes increasingly easier over time for all, to the point where there aren't 100+ members, but 200+, then 400+, etc. It's maintained for new users by only requiring 10 merit, but as DT1 eligibility is also based on inclusions from merit earning individuals, I'm not suggesting making it more difficult for new users to be included in DT1 I don't think.

For example increasing inclusion requirements to 100/500 would make it more difficult for new and old users alike, as the requirement of 10 earnt merit to be eligble would remain the same.

Hopefully that rambling makes some kind of sense...