Topic: Merit Distribution like Wealth Distribution. The Future? (Read 388 times)

Yes, I think that merit distribution could just be like a wealth distribution especially to the people who truly needs to acquire it. However, just believe you can do it and everything will be just fine. Continue to make very useful information so that others could also get benefited from the topic discussion.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I was talking about the potential merit required for the rank, not the merit they got from other users. If you made your account a couple months months before the introduction of merit you became a full member with over 100 free merit that you would otherwise have to work for. Someone doing the same thing after merit was added would have to put much more effort into getting ranked up and wait much longer. Again, we're talking about equality here.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying merit isn't needed. It serves a purpose, but the distribution wasn't equal.

For me, what is missing is some control group in order to be able to calculate if, effectively, the sources of merit and the model of their choices is the best way to organize the forum.

I believe that having users who concentrate for so long the power of decision on the distribution of merits may not be the most effective way to raise the level of the discussions that we have in the forum. And this may end up bringing together a small group focused on certain parts of the forum.

It seems that in the recent weeks, some more sources of merit have been added, to transform the forum into something more decentralized. And their choices were made taking into account the statistics produced by some users and the topics that were made here in the meta section.

But still, they were chosen. There was no random factor.

I think it would be very important to add a random factor or a factor of luck in choosing these sources. This could contribute to the forum strengthening its role of place for discussions as more users could receive merit by participating in the discussions. Note that an ordinary user receiving merit just by participating in the forum is an impossible task. He needs to produce something new and almost unique to be noticed by a source of merit.

Having more diversity would help the forum and the future of Bitcoin and the simplest way is to accept that not everything can or should be controlled by a small minority. Throw some sMerits up, and let luck guide them. It does not have to be many, just a small percentage. And depending on the outcome this could easily be reversed.

Maybe the title misleads the topic I wanted to hit. The main point I wanted to say is that, is it possible that it's going to be like this in merits? The future of merit distribution will be like that. Currently, we are not yet on that stage where there is a scarcity of merits, there are a lot especially with those people that have added have been made merit sources.

This is not a rant topic but something that came up in my mind with it. I'm not treating merit as a problem for the newbies but a challenge for them. I have chosen the wrong word with my title. Going to change my title then.

Before merit was introduced we lived in a forum where everybody could rank by just posting, nothing was required, there were no "inequalities" it was a lot like the re-distribution of wealth.

Every newbie who couldn't even spell bitcoin could enjoy the benefits of this forum that was built by others, people who have made it famous with no incentives at the time.

And guess what, it would have ended just like every redistribution ends in real life, where everybody becomes equal but at the same time poor as nobody would consider advertising on a forum overrun by spambots, people that don't bother reading or are illiterate and can't understand what's written on a simple banner, and with all those that had some knowledge fleeing the country (forum).


Yeah...right.
Funny fact when talking about received merit, Gavin has received only 14 merits, about one 1/5 of how much you've got, and 1/10 of mine.....he should go back to jr member, right?

Yup, it's a good attempt to bring everything back into balance so that accounts hacked and sold to spammers have much lower chance of becoming useful to them. On the other hand it makes accounts with some merit more valuable. As long as the requirement is kept low, like 5 earned merit per member, it's still easy for account traders and hackers to make it, especially if they have a high level account which allows them to trade their own merit.



Are you sure that there's no way to reset rank without deleting posts? Posts allow you to earn activity over time. If you only reset the activity counter the rank will drop along with it leaving the posts intact. We'd need a staff member to clear this out.


I did not say they are undeserving, but the topic is about inequality. I'm simply making a point that this inequality does exist.

Since the rank requires activity points along with Merits (now), and activity points are earned by posting, then resetting every single member of the forum to lower ranks would have meant to delete all the posts they have made until now which is the only way to reset their activity points, and doing that would have cleaned the complete forum and there would have been no posts in any section of the forum after the new system which would make no sense at all.

Besides, not all the higher rank members are undeserving, and they all earned their positions by being active on the forum for so many years since it only required activity to rank up before the Merit system. But still, what I said earlier is the reason why theymos could not reset all the ranks and demote every single user of the forum. It would then be a reset for the forum itself which wouldn't be a good thing for any of us.

I think everyone understands that bountists hunt for merit, they are ready to send hundreds of messages in order to get 1 . They are not worried about the quality of posts, the fact that their spam prevents others, about what interesting things you can learn at the forum, development, experience. I also started my way on the forum leading about 100 bounty, but a month later I realized that all this is one big bubble, a waste of time that brings only degradation, I don’t say that people shouldn’t wear signatures, etc. Just some ppl think a little in another direction, only dreaming to cash in on forum.

As the decent campaign managers are starting to add an earnt merit requirement we will start to see which high ranks are spammers and which aren't.

Should be but it is not. It could be called this aptitude test if all posters got reset to lower ranks and had to earn merit to advance. Since higher ranks got a lot of merit for nothing, same as old, abandoned accounts, that were later traded and used as merit donors, the system is not perfect. At least it does not act as an equal test for all members.
I agree with the rest of your post and believe that having this anti-spam measure is better than nothing, but in terms of equality it is lacking.

I think the spike you see on Sept 23rd is associated to the time new merit sources were appointed. Perhaps they sent most of their merit in that week and ran out in the next one, this should stabilize over the next few weeks.

Regarding the new people that are not receiving enough merit, maybe we should cut them some slack. New members don't have the ability to create very good posts as comparing them to other older members.
Maybe we could encourage the ones that have potential and are not spamming the hell out of this forum.

Of course that doesn't mean we should rank-up everyone. They need to be able to express their ideas in a clear way and contribute with what they can to the forum.
Contrary to what some new users think, they have a lot of ways of contributing to this forum.

I associate discussions about inequality that has arisen as a consequence of the introduction of the merit-system with those who don`t want to do anything but wish to live well and richly. In order to succeed in any business, it`s necessary to reject the "morality of slaves" and the sense of ressentiment and begin to try, striving towards your goal. People must finally understand that without effort nothing can be achieved. If you want to get merit, write quality posts, improve your knowledge and learn to present them in an interesting and understandable form. Of course, the easiest way is to sit on the couch and complain about the injustice of life. But only those who have managed to tear themselves from the sofa, get up and start doing something, no matter how hard it is become really successful. Success is the result of effort, not endless whining. You can`t blame those who have achieved something, thus protecting yourself by talking about inequality.

No. It's a state of people being lazy, incompetent and entitled. Letting anyone and everyone earn from signature campaigns is like giving jobs to people who are not qualified to do them. Should everyone be allowed to be a brain surgeon? No. Should everyone be an electrician? No. If you're not qualified to do a job then you don't get that job. Simple. Should everyone be able to earn from signature campaigns here? No. If you can't speak English and know nothing about bitcoin then you shouldn't be allowed to earn here via such a way. Merit should be the qualification or aptitude test to show that you're qualified to earn via posting since campaign managers can't be trusted to hold some sort of minimum standards, and this 'qualification' should be much higher than one merit.

The clue is in the name of merit:


All you need to do is make posts that are notable, but obviously this is too hard for most of the idiot kids here. If you make great posts then you will get enough merit eventually. If you're a shitposter then you won't. That's it. Anything else is just whining and whinging because they now actually have to make some effort to actually get anywhere instead of just getting paid to churn out generic nonsense over however many accounts they have which is useless to everyone apart from the signature campaigns who pay for it and that's the issue and why we need something like the merit system, but it certainly doesn't go far enough.

I don’t have a problem with wealth inequality the same way as I don’t have it with merit inequality.

On average the rich get richer and the poor also get richer because wealth is not like a cake where if someone has a bigger piece the rest have a smaller piece to share. It is more like a tree that grows, and someone can have more fruit but the rest can also have more fruit. And when they drop the seeds after eating, some of them will root and become new trees.

The same way, I don’t mind the top posters getting most of the merit because they deserve it, and I know there is merit left for me to earn. This “wealth” is not like a piece of cake one, either, as more merit sources can be introduced.

There are a lot of things to consider here in BTT, and this concerns the new members, that they are wondering how to level up, get activity points, and especially the latest addition to the forum is merit. All of the questions that you might have when you are just starting is in here.

All the new members could be thought of as newborns, starting their journey in the crypto world, here in BTT. Some have begged to have merit, and some are just posting a lot of stuff hoping that they get merit with that amount, but the quality is all that matters. In other words, some are just struggling, and it’s their fault if they didn’t manage to make a great topic or whatnot. Here is an article about the Bitcoin Talk Merit System



Is it like poverty? Where is it the state of being inferior to the ones who have a lot of Merits? This is just a random thought but could it be considered like this? sMerit has no value, but it has turned a lot of people begging for it, like money.
The “MERIThiest” (Wealthiest) has apparently given theirs away (no data here but it could be thought of knowing that it shouldn’t be hoarded), but the average members who don’t have much merit, cannot merit anymore does leading to a drought in merits, or if they have merits, they are going to be picky to whomever or whatever topic it is. Some could be accused of merit abuse if they didn't make the right decision. Should it be shared or if it is thought of as money, donated?


Quoted from coinlocket$ in the topic Merit & new rank requirements

The question is, do you want a lot of leveling up members in the top 10% of the most merited or not?

For me, it means that there are more quality members that have gone to the top and exerted effort towards being the most merited member.

Hopefully, this sheds light on the broad picture of what merit could look like if it’s thought of as wealth. No formal judgments with the merit holdings by members and perhaps need more investigation as to why merit faucet dried up.


P.S. Should there be merit Surveys like wealth surveys to help add more info?

Some discussions about merit distribution
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/has-the-merit-faucet-dried-up-solutions-4502448
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/merit-distribution-slowing-4516394

Reference for the BTC Wealth share:
https://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2014/03/03/who-owns-all-the-bitcoins/