Hey guys...did we lose a ton of merit sources or am I hallucinating?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

As I've been doing a shitty job as a merit source for months now, I've not visited the forum's merit stats section in some time.  I feel shame and want to defenestrate myself right off a skyscraper....but I digress. 

Visit those pages I did, and my orbs nearly popped out of my head when I saw this:



Because I was shocked, I have a feeling the number of merit sources used to be a lot higher, but that isn't a statistic I've kept in my head or read a post about since I don't know when.  My question then is this: Did we used to have far more than 88 sources or am I making that up in my chronically fatigued noggin? 

My second question is whether 88 merit sources generating (is that distributing?) just over 30k merits per month cutting it?  That seems low relative to the number of members we've got here.

Local rules, kiddos:  Stay on topic.  I'll report low-value posts or anything I even suspect came out of the godforsaken pissbrain of an AI thingamajig.  Aside from that, anything goes.

[Mia Chloe]

~snip

Theymos did a general rework recently that was when he removed inactive sources and appointed a few new ones. But it seems the number of inactive sources were way more than the number of new ones added. Nevertheless I for example have a limited amount of source merits.

Regardless I just try as much as possible to stretch thin between my local board and the technical board. Don't forget 1miau left recently so we've also lost another source with huge allocations.

[Hazink]

Let me quote myself from when I noticed the reduction, theymos removed inactive once’s and approved few others.

There has been a little change, which I observed from the merit source data board. We previously had about 109 merit sources, and currently the number has been reduced to 88, and the total number of Smerits by source is down to 31318 from 32990. A lot of inactive merit sources have been removed, and from the announcement on Meta, it appears that a few merit sources have also been added. This could be what the admin was doing the day merit sources were experiencing a bug on their merit send page (negative Smerit).

[Charles-Tim]

My question then is this: Did we used to have far more than 88 sources or am I making that up in my chronically fatigued noggin?

The total number of merit sources on this forum before new sources were selected were around 108 to 111. I have forgotten the exact number of the merit sources but I am certain that it is within that range.

I think theymos will increase the merit allocation is my guess.

Some merit sources are not active at all and theymos noticed.

[LoyceV]

You're not hallucinating, just a tad slow

There has been a little change, which I observed from the merit source data board. We previously had about 109 merit sources, and currently the number has been reduced to 88, and the total number of Smerits by source is down to 31318 from 32990. A lot of inactive merit sources have been removed, and from the announcement on Meta, it appears that a few merit sources have also been added.

Those 31318 source Merits give the receivers about the same amount to send, but in reality much less is sent:

Total: 2130361

Total: 2205002

I count 74641 Merits in 3 months, so about 25000 per month on average. I'd say that's enough: there are much less posts than when Merit was introduced, while good posters aren't restricted by Merit for ranking up.

[Hazink]

The total number of merit sources on this forum before new sources were selected were around 108 to 111. I have forgotten the exact number of the merit sources but I am certain that it is within that range.

There were exactly 109 merit sources before the approval of new sources, and before then the admin first increased the number of source merits by 200 as  I reported here

[AakZaki]

The data below shows that this name is a newly raised Merit Source, but it is not listed on the Most generous recent merit senders
I myself applied for a Merit Source that had not been accepted, my name was listed there.
This shows that the Merit Source in the list below does not distribute the Merit because it does not find a good thread or post or indeed the Merit to be hoarded or for personal collection 

Update
Accepted merit sources from the list but I can miss some newest approved merit sources. If you are such new sources or know of missing sources, please inform me.

____________________________	______________________	______________	______________________
Date of application	Username	Application Link	Board
____________________________	______________________	______________	______________________
29 Sep 2024	cryptoaddictchie	Link	Pilipinas
19 Apr 2025	SmartGold01	Link	Naija
26 May 2024	TheUltraElite	Link	Indian
23 Aug 2023	cryptofrka	Link	Gambling board
6 Nov 2020	irfan_pak10	Link	Pakistan
12 Jun 2022	xzone	Link	Turkish
19 May 2020	alani123	Link	Greek
____________________________	______________________	______________	____________

Even though it has been explained

There is no point in hoarding sMerit; keeping it yourself does not benefit you, and we reserve the right to decay unused sMerit in the future.

[Upgrade00]

This shows that the Merit Source in the list below does not distribute the Merit because it does not find a good thread or post or indeed the Merit to be hoarded or for personal collection 

You cannot rely on that as a metric to judge who is distributing their merits effectively. Merit sources receive different allocations monthly, I think local board sources gets the lowest on average. They may be exhausting their entire allocation but it will not be enough omto get them on the list of most generous merit senders.

This is also part of the reason theymos opted to keep sources anonymous. He appointed them and appraises their work, if they're not doing enough or inactive he will remove and replace as he did recently. Being overly critical of what they do just adds more stress on a voluntary role.

[Ambatman]

 

My second question is whether 88 merit sources generating (is that distributing?) just over 30k merits per month cutting it?  That seems low relative to the number of members we've got here.

I believe it is. Merit source just help increase the total supply of merits
If others sent then it would be more.

Merit sources 30,000
Direct receiver 15000
Next receivers 7500
Subsequent 3250 etc
That's more than 50K. Almost 2000 merit in a day.
And according to https://bitlist.co/dashboard?date_min=2025-12-17&date_max=2025-12-24 around 4000 post are made in a day.
If we account for generic and shitpost the average might be impressive.

[GeorgeJohn]

My question then is this: Did we used to have far more than 88 sources or am I making that up in my chronically fatigued noggin?  

We have more than that...The problem we were facing before theymos add more merit sources, the problem is still in the forum, it's few sources that is showing working of distributing merits, not as many as the sources we have.

Don't forget 1miau left recently so we've also lost another source with huge allocations.

Losing of one merit source can't be the caused of what's slowing the merit circulation....maybe the newly added source merit allocations is small, and is not equivalent to the retired or inactive merit sources  allocation.

theymos removed inactive once’s and approved few others.

In nutshell, that means the removed inactive sources is as same as the newly added merit sources, is it what you mean?.

[Ivystar5]

The fact that you spoke out as a reputable member makes me more happy because the level of backlash I would have gotten if I did create this thread or someone of my level said something about it wouldn't be the same as people would respond you, however, it's true that the circulation of merit is very slow and seem like the number of merit individual merit source has now especially the new merit source is far lesser than the old scrapped merit sources had.

I think the limited merit that the new merit sources has is the reason why it seems to be very slow in terms of distribution. a few more increase will probably make a difference now.

[Hazink]

We have more than that...The problem we were facing before theymos add more merit sources, the problem is still in the forum, it's few sources that is showing working of distributing merits, not as many as the sources we have.

We had only 109 merit earlier before now before the new new set where added and some removed which after deduction of the removed one and adding those newly approved we have a number of 88, which is far below what we usually have, and the total monthly number of generated Smerit was previously 32990, but we have 31318 now which is just about 1672 Smerit difference from what all source used to generate.

theymos removed inactive once’s and approved few others.

In nutshell, that means the removed inactive sources is as same as the newly added merit sources, is it what you mean?.

How can I mean that? What's the point of removing a source and adding the person back again? My statement was very clear, inactive once they were removed and a new set of merit sources were added and those added were from the pending merit source application and not adding back the same people that were removed.

[bitmover]

~snip

Theymos did a general rework recently that was when he removed inactive sources and appointed a few new ones. But it seems the number of inactive sources were way more than the number of new ones added. Nevertheless I for example have a limited amount of source merits.

Regardless I just try as much as possible to stretch thin between my local board and the technical board. Don't forget 1miau left recently so we've also lost another source with huge allocations.

It would be interesting to see the data of which (or at least which boards) reduced merit sources.

I believe there is so much merit farming/abuse in some local boards for so long time... I think some of those should be reviewed....

I count 74641 Merits in 3 months, so about 25000 per month on average. I'd say that's enough: there are much less posts than when Merit was introduced, while good posters aren't restricted by Merit for ranking up.

Does that mean that the introduction of merit reduced spam? Or that fewer people are coming to bitcointalk?

[LoyceV]

Does that mean that the introduction of merit reduced spam? Or that fewer people are coming to bitcointalk?

Both, I think. Or less people create account farms.

[Mia Chloe]

It would be interesting to see the data of which (or at least which boards) reduced merit sources.
I believe there is so much merit farming/abuse in some local boards for so long time... I think some of those should be reviewed....

The thing is even if being a merit source is a voluntary thing it's one of the most important roles on the forum. Because of their allocation they actually have the power to moderate merit to an extent. If merit sources don't merit quality posts overtime they will drop because it would seem like they are not acknowledged.

Regardless merit distribution is still everyone's responsibility. Many users hoard a ton of smerits even if they earn alot all these factors have a role to play in merit distribution.

[vapourminer]

If merit sources don't merit quality posts overtime they will drop because it would seem like they are not acknowledged.

um, no i disagree.

at least for the kind of forum members and posts this place needs (or should rate, as its pretty much the birthplace of bitcoin) anyway.

quality poster gonna post quality posts no matter what reward or acknowledgements they may or may not get.

[yahoo62278]

As I've been doing a shitty job as a merit source for months now, I've not visited the forum's merit stats section in some time.  I feel shame and want to defenestrate myself right off a skyscraper....but I digress. 

Everyone gets busy and does a bad job at times, it's not the end of the world. Merit sources do need to realize that they applied and accepted a position that does require them to be active more often then not.

From the date Loyce posted it doesn't look like too big a fall off even though there look to be a few less sources. I think the issues we see are some take a break, some only concentrate on local boards and merit the same people, some only wanted the job for prestige, and some may be facing health issues or IRL issues.

Would be a big improvement if we regularly added new sources IMO so we don't see too much of a drop off when a source or 2 go inactive.

[Lucius]

~snip~
Would be a big improvement if we regularly added new sources IMO so we don't see too much of a drop off when a source or 2 go inactive.

It seems that the admin is happy with how things work when it comes to merits sources that are focused on the general part of the forum, and has only added new sources for local boards. The new tactic is obviously to reduce the number of sources, while at the same time increasing the number of merits they can award each month.

I expressed my desire to be one of the merits sources a year ago, as did some others - but no one got the chance when new sources were added. Given that some requests have been moved/archived, it seems that some users have been made aware that they should not hope for them to be added in the near future.

[Zaguru12]

I expressed my desire to be one of the merits sources a year ago, as did some others - but no one got the chance when new sources were added. Given that some requests have been moved/archived, it seems that some users have been made aware that they should not hope for them to be added in the near future.

Now this answers my question of why low merits in the general board after new sources have been approved, obviously the new sources where more of local merits sources which we all know are allocated way less merits than those on general board, you have like four local merit sources equivalent to one general board merit source which means the approval hasn’t actually helped that much.

One thing I have actually agreed with is that most of the merit sources with huge amounts of it do not actively share them like they do before either maybe they don’t see many quality posts again or maybe they themselves do not find this place that interesting to be active, I personally think it’s the latter because I rarely see some of them that active again and you can’t expect someone who isn’t that active to be able to spot many quality posts

[alani123]

Why blame merit sources for low merit circulation instead of blaming low post quality?

It is a problem with multiple factors to account for. I think there's actually an oversupply of merit now and an extreme lack of good posts by new users. I was surprised my merit application got approved recently because my observation has been that quality discussion has actually gone down here. Obviously out of the thousands of posts made here daily most are about gambling because that's where the money is. Merit alone acts more like a barrier to spammers leveling up their accounts rather than just giving incentive to new users. Because also there seems to be kind of a lack of interest for new users to make genuinely good posts.

The merit system has created a kind of market but it looks to me that there aren't many takers. And if the merit sources increase along with the available merit, then it loses its value even further. If we're at a point where there's plethora of good posts that don't get merit only then if would be justified to increase merit distributions. Right now I think we're in an inflation phase. A few accounts keep getting merit although they don't need it to level up anymore.