And that merit sources, in that kind of threads, when someone is missing for example 30 merits to rank up, if they see that he is a decent poster they give them to him right away.
I was thinking of (hypothetical) users who need say 400 more Merit to rank up.
That hypothetical scenario looks almost as an oxymoron to me.
Someone who needs 400 merits to rank up would already have the Hero level, so he would have been noticed by the merit sources. The only exception to this would be if he had obtained his first 500 merits airdropped, which I don't know if anyonef got so many merits airdropped.
Short of 400, the only example I can think of of someone being a constructive poster and not getting enough merit is writing alone on a local board where there is no merit source.
But otherwise I don't think more merit sources are needed and I even think some of the current ones have too high an allocation of smerits, because they never give a merit alone. I have seen a minimum of 4 merits per post merited in many merit sources.
In the end if there are more merit sources, and if many give a minimum of 4 merits per post to finish their monthly merit allocation, what you end up with is merit inflation, which is precisely what Bitcoin avoids, inflation.
Giving merits has a component of subjectivity, but the minimum to be given should be one. The fact that there are several merit sources that never give a merit per post indicates inflation.