Two parallel questions to get community feedback.
- Maximum 50 posts per week is good enough or 40 per week is better?
- Would you like to have $250 or $200 per week?
I am not considering opinion from average quality posters but posters who do not chase weekly maximum limits, who posts because they shares valuable insights and guidance. I would like to have opinion from current Green Zone, Legendary and many other prominent bitcointalk members.
Good time to join Sinbad, I guess
![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
CM vibes around here..
Of course everybody will prefer 250 to 200$, most of us don't write 50 posts week in/week out though.
6$ per post was kind of a soft spot for the best posters on the forum, I hope it continues to be the case going forward.
Then again, 5$ per post for a maximum of 50 is better than 6$ per post for a maximum of 25
![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
If a poster is good and has time to write, I'll always vote for a higher max number of posts to be accepted.
In best campaigns post quality should not be in doubt, after all - there will be people fighting for these spots and if we write 50 bad posts, we'll simply be replaced.
I'd like to touch on the following though:
In summary, Green Zone will be removed and Merit Rank will be introduced.
I personally feel that merits are more of a 'persistence' thing, and are also easy to farm. You can go to the WO board and get 10 merits daily by posting memes and selling hopium, whereas you can write 20 quality posts in gambling without receiving any.
I'm not against merit ranks per se, I'm just saying that the distribution is skewed - and that merits alone are often not the best representation of a user's posting quality. I hope that we won't have huge oscillations in payments with merits as the sole evaluating criteria.