How many of the merits source are doing what Theymos Said?

[Perfectbaby]

I am looking for a post created by theymos where he "said you can give 50 merits to a post that is worthy" than not giving it. I could be wrong with exact post, he created the post but I think is about "Good" is Worthy enough to receive such merits than writing a bunch of text that is worthless.

Recently I have been seeing about merits discussions or being rotation as they do have on DTs. Usually this is not something to bug people around as I believe anyone who is that creative helping the community would definitely grow, and we must not only depends on our locals to gain merits towards the next rank. Other thing I think should be implemented is to remove those who are not active for the duration of months maybe, I can say from the past 3-8 months if they aren't active on the community posting and giving out merits. Although, I know that lot of people out there have their respective activities which they should handle before coming to the forum to clear those who are lacking merits. I must say that before merits source be given to application they should try to know their activities, I mean physically task or home chores which is very hard for those who are wanting to become source, but if they can prove otherwise then they should be added as one and monitor them how they work or becoming that active to the community.

I would also want to emphasize on the rotational aspect of merits, to me it would cause more cheating or harm as they wouldn't know how to handle it, for instance they could favor those who are their friends than others, infact if theymos most do that i wouldn't mind suggesting him to increase those who their allocations are very small and then remove those who are not active on the forum for about 3-8 plus.  I actually love the way merits procedures are being handled but that doesn't mean it should be rationed all times just as DTs are being voted.

[Churchillvv]

I had to quote it completely so you see it yourself that he once actually said such just to clarify a situation that once aroused.

If they complain about amounts, tell them to complain to me. It's best if sources try to exhaust their source allocations, even if it means giving posts higher amounts than is typical. If you have 150 source merit and you only see 3 merit-worthy posts in a month, then I'd rather you over-give each of them 50 merit than let the merit expire. That way there are more people capable of sending merit, and the "merit economy" is less top-down.

I think this thread shouldn't be a separate one, don't you think it belongs to the thread you referenced? instead of creating a different discussion thread.

[Findingnemo]

. I must say that before merits source be given to application they should try to know their activities, I mean physically task or home chores which is very hard for those who are wanting to become source, but if they can prove otherwise then they should be added as one and monitor them how they work or becoming that active to the community.

I would also add weekly meeting with theymos to report which posts received merits. 

Being merit source is a voluntary task not a paying job for whatever they do so let's not make it too complicated. And the thread you're talking about is just looking for ideas to bring back the merit sources in action since many became inactive and no new sources were added for a while.

Not criticizing the local board users or anyone if I am not wrong.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

In most cases, those who apply to be merit sources to a personal level really believe they will be very active in the forum for years, but you sometimes know life has different plans, and they find themselves inactive in the forum. You can't blame them.

I also believe the admins have also tried as much as possible to periodically remove inactive merit sources and add new ones. Of course there's no timetable for this, but I have witnessed it before,

[Perfectbaby]

I had to quote it completely so you see it yourself that he once actually said such just to clarify a situation that once aroused.

If they complain about amounts, tell them to complain to me. It's best if sources try to exhaust their source allocations, even if it means giving posts higher amounts than is typical. If you have 150 source merit and you only see 3 merit-worthy posts in a month, then I'd rather you over-give each of them 50 merit than let the merit expire. That way there are more people capable of sending merit, and the "merit economy" is less top-down.

I think this thread shouldn't be a separate one, don't you think it belongs to the thread you referenced? instead of creating a different discussion thread.

Thank you for quoting that topic and I have been looking for it. Like he said if this is happening then I don't think there is any reason to accept more merits source because if such a huge dump is made they could also see users around them who needs it to for either their next ranking or for it not to expired as he said. I can take myself for example; We could have two source dump 100 to the op and he can actually share across the post that doesn't receive merits for their quality post. I think it's from here people are getting it too hard for them because most people do not usually exhausts their allocations before renewals.

[_act_]

infact if theymos most do that i wouldn't mind suggesting him to increase those who their allocations are very small and then remove those who are not active on the forum for about 3-8 plus.

They do not need to remove merit source to increase the allocation of other merit source, it is better to have more merit source instead. There have been many people that have applied for merit source but has not been chosen. But you are right that inactive source should be removed but those that are not merit source should be used to replace them.

[Perfectbaby]

infact if theymos most do that i wouldn't mind suggesting him to increase those who their allocations are very small and then remove those who are not active on the forum for about 3-8 plus.

They do not need to remove merit source to increase the allocation of other merit source, it is better to have more merit source instead. There have been many people that have applied for merit source but has not been chosen. But you are right that inactive source should be removed but those that are not merit source should be used to replace them.

That could be the right time to flush out those that are not active here and let the forum continue being the better and best place to learn and explore new things about the cryptocurrency.
You would see that immediately theymos began to make adjustments some  may become active to resume their activities and these sets of people are being topup whenever Theymos refilling their merits, I think whenever he notices such people he should not refill them instead should paused and when they come online they can resume depending on how active or committed the person could do.

[Ivystar5]

If they complain about amounts, tell them to complain to me. It's best if sources try to exhaust their source allocations, even if it means giving posts higher amounts than is typical. If you have 150 source merit and you only see 3 merit-worthy posts in a month, then I'd rather you over-give each of them 50 merit than let the merit expire. That way there are more people capable of sending merit, and the "merit economy" is less top-down.

Thank you for quoting that topic and I have been looking for it. Like he said if this is happening then I don't think there is any reason to accept more merits source because if such a huge dump is made they could also see users around them who needs it to for either their next ranking or for it not to expired as he said.

The fact that I have experience this discretion of Theymos. If someone makes a quality post I'm 100% sure fillippone can dump 100 merits on such post because I'm a first hand testimony to that. As long as the post is direct and provides help then instead of letting your merit source to expire fillippone will dump it on a post.

[Agbamoni]

Honestly this is something we rarely see but that doesn't mean most merit sources are not willing to give up to 50 merit on one post. The issue here is that there are lots of low quality post now compared to before. However I can remember Fillipone giving someone 50 merit.

Check here.
 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5537415.msg65248672#msg65248672

[BenCodie]

What I fail to understand is why a separate voting system was not made to elect merit sources every month, quarter or year. We have time to vote on extremely elaborate threads for bitcointalk awards (which are basically for fun and casino sponsorships), yet nothing to determine to fairly determine/vote on which members are worthy of the power to award merit to contributors?

The "application and approval" process seems that it would take a long time and too much damage to the integrity of ranks and merit before a bad acting merit source was found and removed (and after removal, what difference does that make to damage caused to integrity of the system from then on?)

[TheUltraElite]

Theymos has the knowledge of how active the sources are and they are the bust judge about this. When they feel circulation is having problems they will surely step in.

Voting for merit sources if done should be similar to DT voting, community voting leads to rigged results only. I dont know this can be implemented but it would be a good idea. The "friends and family" problem will always be there and we just have to deal with it.

Stuff to change on this forum takes time and we understand that delay.

[SilverCryptoBullet]

I am looking for a post created by theymos where he "said you can give 50 merits to a post that is worthy" than not giving it. I could be wrong with exact post, he created the post but I think is about "Good" is Worthy enough to receive such merits than writing a bunch of text that is worthless.

You wondered about it and you did this merit transaction, 5 merit to this post as an example of shit posts can receive merit.

The fact that I have experience this discretion of Theymos. If someone makes a quality post I'm 100% sure fillippone can dump 100 merits on such post because I'm a first hand testimony to that. As long as the post is direct and provides help then instead of letting your merit source to expire fillippone will dump it on a post.

If you can merit that post with 5 merit, you can easily find many posts that are deserved with 50 merits.

This post is not accurate because one month, one user can only send to another user a maximum 50 merit, not more, so dumping 100 merit on one post is impossible.

If they complain about amounts, tell them to complain to me. It's best if sources try to exhaust their source allocations, even if it means giving posts higher amounts than is typical. If you have 150 source merit and you only see 3 merit-worthy posts in a month, then I'd rather you over-give each of them 50 merit than let the merit expire. That way there are more people capable of sending merit, and the "merit economy" is less top-down.

I don't actually agree because it can be abused like good posts don't get merit but shit post get merit or a lot of merit and senders can quote this post to show that they don't break anything or abuse merit transactions to not quality posts while they truly saw better posts but did not merit.

[LoyceV]

If you have 150 source merit and you only see 3 merit-worthy posts in a month, then I'd rather you over-give each of them 50 merit than let the merit expire.

Yeah well, I disagree
When the Merit system was introduced, I started by sending 1 most of the time, then 4, and now often 6. And the occasional much larger amount for posts that I believe deserve it. If I were to just dump 50 Merit on a few posts that are "okay" but not exceptional, that doesn't feel right.

You know which other Merit source disagrees with this, and doesn't empty his monthly source? This one:

Merit sent by theymos (Trust list) from January 24, 2018 until May 09, 2025 (source)


  1605. Thu 01 May 2025 10:08:00 PM CEST: 2 (13951) to ESG (history) for Re: [April Fools] Replacing the merit system
  1604. Wed 30 Apr 2025 10:42:43 PM CEST: 10 (13949) to ESG (history) for Re: [April Fools] Replacing the merit system
  1603. Fri 25 Apr 2025 05:36:29 PM CEST: 2 (13939) to Charles-Tim (Trust list) (history) for Why is this report marked bad?
  1602. Fri 25 Apr 2025 05:22:40 PM CEST: 2 (13937) to Churchillvv (history) for [Solved] Dormant moderator; What do you guys think!
  1601. Thu 03 Apr 2025 12:07:31 AM CEST: 10 (13935) to ibminer (Trust list) (history) for [SALE] Bitcointalk Merit Poker: Collector's Edition Deck, Stand & Chips
  1600. Thu 03 Apr 2025 12:07:27 AM CEST: 10 (13925) to ibminer (Trust list) (history) for Re: [April Fools] Replacing the merit system
  1599. Tue 01 Apr 2025 11:38:47 PM CEST: 45 (13915) to PowerGlove (Trust list) (history) for Re: Replacing the merit system
  1598. Tue 01 Apr 2025 12:36:38 PM CEST: 10 (13870) to JiiBs (history) for Was the founder @Satoshi just active? [April Fool] fun
  1597. Tue 01 Apr 2025 05:04:51 AM CEST: 5 (13860) to Beparanf (history) for Re: Replacing the merit system
  1596. Tue 01 Apr 2025 12:38:44 AM CEST: 5 (13855) to Xal0lex (Trust list) (history) for deleted post
  1595. Tue 01 Apr 2025 12:38:39 AM CEST: 5 (13850) to EFS (Trust list) (history) for deleted post
  1594. Sun 30 Mar 2025 09:13:04 PM CEST: 20 (13845) to NotATether (Trust list) (history) for Talksearch.io - Advanced Bitcointalk Search Engine
  1593. Wed 26 Mar 2025 04:41:57 PM CET: 2 (13825) to jnano (history) for Forum's "Latest Bitcoin Core release" version isn't up to date
  1592. Wed 12 Mar 2025 10:31:06 PM CET: 10 (13823) to memehunter (Trust list) (history) for Re: Off-topic Tag Issue:PNF experience ! How can I challenge or get an explanation
  1591. Wed 05 Mar 2025 10:39:28 PM CET: 5 (13813) to PowerGlove (Trust list) (history) for Re: Bug about topics from Spanish board which are not displayed correctly
  1590. Mon 03 Mar 2025 06:54:25 PM CET: 2 (13808) to LoyceV (Trust list) (history) for Re: Mixers to be banned
  1589. Mon 03 Mar 2025 06:50:15 PM CET: 2 (13806) to hilariousandco (Trust list) (history) for Re: Mixers to be banned
  1588. Thu 13 Feb 2025 10:47:33 PM CET: 1 (13804) to Mitchell (Trust list) (history) for deleted post
  1587. Wed 29 Jan 2025 10:28:07 PM CET: 1 (13803) to hosemary (Trust list) (history) for Re: Anyone else noticed this issue before?
  1586. Wed 22 Jan 2025 10:39:56 PM CET: 1 (13802) to NotATether (Trust list) (history) for Ross is coming home!
  1585. Wed 15 Jan 2025 06:16:28 PM CET: 10 (13801) to SFR10 (Trust list) (history) for Re: Live-data demo
  1584. Wed 08 Jan 2025 05:17:17 PM CET: 5 (13791) to suchmoon (Trust list) (history) for Re: Live-data demo

[EarnOnVictor]

infact if theymos most do that i wouldn't mind suggesting him to increase those who their allocations are very small and then remove those who are not active on the forum for about 3-8 plus.

They do not need to remove merit source to increase the allocation of other merit source, it is better to have more merit source instead.

What is the usefulness of the merit source who has been absent from the forum for 3-8 months? Perhaps you didn't read that.

And if at all such comes back and is still willing to be a merit source, he should reapply, in my opinion. It's now left for theymos to decide if he is still worthy.

[Timelord2067]

The merit system was corrupted the moment the concept was typed out.

There is no trickle down effect and the various gangs will shower their own members for self gratification overly inflating their own egos.

It's an abject failure.

[_act_]

infact if theymos most do that i wouldn't mind suggesting him to increase those who their allocations are very small and then remove those who are not active on the forum for about 3-8 plus.

They do not need to remove merit source to increase the allocation of other merit source, it is better to have more merit source instead.

What is the usefulness of the merit source who has been absent from the forum for 3-8 months? Perhaps you didn't read that.

And if at all such comes back and is still willing to be a merit source, he should reapply, in my opinion. It's now left for theymos to decide if he is still worthy.

I read and understood what was posted but you did not understand what I posted at all. I only quoted Perfectbaby that theymos does not need to increase the merit allocation of the existing merit source, that we need new merit source. I am not saying theymos should not remove inactive merit source. Read what I wrote again for you to understand.

[Perfectbaby]

If they complain about amounts, tell them to complain to me. It's best if sources try to exhaust their source allocations, even if it means giving posts higher amounts than is typical. If you have 150 source merit and you only see 3 merit-worthy posts in a month, then I'd rather you over-give each of them 50 merit than let the merit expire. That way there are more people capable of sending merit, and the "merit economy" is less top-down.

Thank you for quoting that topic and I have been looking for it. Like he said if this is happening then I don't think there is any reason to accept more merits source because if such a huge dump is made they could also see users around them who needs it to for either their next ranking or for it not to expired as he said.

The fact that I have experience this discretion of Theymos. If someone makes a quality post I'm 100% sure fillippone can dump 100 merits on such post because I'm a first hand testimony to that. As long as the post is direct and provides help then instead of letting your merit source to expire fillippone will dump it on a post.

I have known Fillippone to be the most Generous merits giver after JayJuanGee and has also maintained what Theymos said. Of course if they can be able to do that then there will be need for others to give out to post they found quality enough as well, without leaving the whole work on the merits source. Being a merits source doesn't mean they must hold back their allocations to expire on them before the month runs out, giving 50 merits at a go doesn't cost them anything rather it's helping them to reduce the task on them because those people will definitely give out to othe quality post out there, through that their loads reduces.

infact if theymos most do that i wouldn't mind suggesting him to increase those who their allocations are very small and then remove those who are not active on the forum for about 3-8 plus.

They do not need to remove merit source to increase the allocation of other merit source, it is better to have more merit source instead.

What is the usefulness of the merit source who has been absent from the forum for 3-8 months? Perhaps you didn't read that.

And if at all such comes back and is still willing to be a merit source, he should reapply, in my opinion. It's now left for theymos to decide if he is still worthy.

I read and understood what was posted but you did not understand what I posted at all. I only quoted Perfectbaby that theymos does not need to increase the merit allocation of the existing merit source, that we need new merit source. I am not saying theymos should not remove inactive merit source. Read what I wrote again for you to understand.

Yes you are right and that's what you said if he could revisit your comment above, I think he didn't comprehend your comment correctly before he responded to your comment, and it's obvious that most people do misunderstood people for what they don't know or have idea on. If theymos increase more merits source it would also help out people to reach more post that are deserving merits, let say if theymos can each local board 2 more merits source it will to increase the growth of every locales.

[Lucius]

I am looking for a post created by theymos where he "said you can give 50 merits to a post that is worthy" than not giving it. I could be wrong with exact post, he created the post but I think is about "Good" is Worthy enough to receive such merits than writing a bunch of text that is worthless. ~snip~

A senior member who does not know how to use the search engine does not deserve that rank, what do you think about that? Besides, you could have continued the discussion in the thread from which you got the idea for this unnecessary topic.


By the way, I don't think it makes much sense to compare merit sources the way some do, everyone has their own way and style.

[Btcdeybodi]

Too many threads about merit discussion on the META board lately. it's now looking as if there is so much uniqueness about the merit system. I think legendary members wouldn't care much about merit anymore since they have achieved the highest rank of the forum because irrespective of the fact that merit is for quality posts, they won't care much about it anymore.

However, looking at the comment of Theymos, he doesn't wish that merit allocations should expire without it being given to quality posts monthly. The forum needs more growth and it can only be achieved when every system of the forum is active and functional of which the merit system is not an exception...

I have discovered that those who solve problems in the forum or makes posts in the technical boards, earns merits faster than those who makes posts in other boards of the forum. The merit system is not perfect but i think it is still serving its motive (post quality) somehow.

OP, the decision of what happens next about the merit system is left for Theymos to decide, there is nothing we say here that will make any changes except a vote is being set on how users want the merit sources to work.

[Obim34]

Too many threads about merit discussion on the META board lately. it's now looking as if there is so much uniqueness about the merit system. I think legendary members wouldn't care much about merit anymore since they have achieved the highest rank of the forum because irrespective of the fact that merit is for quality posts, they won't care much about it anymore.

Receiving merits isn't segregated into ranks, even a legendary deserves merits for any quality post, they have all right to care. One most employed systems of accepting members into signature campaigns is by merit qualification, don't forget.