Getting it on 40 is a little bit exagerrated don't you think? If the admin happened to agree with your opinion, but I guess he would just adjust it by 10 more which gives us 20Merits Requirement for Member Ranks.
You're right. 40 merits is too much. I lowered the proposed threshold to 20 merits and edited my first post.
I seem to have conflicting data on the Merit Dashboard (i.e. needing merits: 8 Legendries were gained, 29 Heroes, 93 Sr. Members, 167 Full Members, 3.130 Members and 9.495 Jr. Members). Not sure why we differ really (If you want to, PM me the list of Heroes so that I can contrast it with my data, and PM you back with the reason we differ).
I forgot to mention that these ranks are based on the merit amount regardless of the current activity, so I just added the notice below the chart.
<...>
Without crossing with current rank, the number of merits received bares some concentration on key amounts:
nEarnedMerits nUsers
1 10340
2 3582
3 1619
4 1075
5 1221
6 670
7 529
8 370
9 259
10 2415
11 493
<...>
99 6
100 21
101 8
10 is way above 9 and 11 for example, and so is 100 in comparison to 99 and 101 (but a small representation at that).
You've shown interesting statistics. 2415 users have
exactly 10 merits. As I can see, most of new users stop earning merits if they reach a Member position.
you are also ignoring the fact that there are many legit members who still at ranks of members or full member but have more merit than most Sr / Hero / Legendary members, your proposal is a good one , but you can't solve a problem only to create another problem. by applying your solution, you will simply give a lead to those shit-posters of higher ranks plus creating a higher demand for merit, some shitposters might try hard to get 10 merit, but if they have to get 20 they will look for shortcuts.
In my opinion, the second problem might be solved by removing merits from such users, using transactions with a negative merit value.