sMerit deadline - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: jackg on May 21, 2018, 11:46:28 AM

It'll also lead to alright posts being merited and that's not what we're after

I think it's okay to merit "alright posts". If an "alright poster" ranks up, that's a good thing. I don't think Merit is meant to reject people who are "alright", it's meant to reject people with bad posts.
I'm not saying an "alright" post should get as many Merits as an excellent post, but some encouragement doesn't hurt either.

jackg

copper member

Activity: 2856

Merit: 3071

https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory

Quote from: Theb on May 21, 2018, 08:45:26 AM

I agree with what others have said and I personally think that it is a bad idea as well. Your solution of decaying sMerits won't have your intended effect as this will just encourage this higher rank members to distribute their unspent sMerits to their alt accounts, instead of giving to worthy post. Plus this way of encouragement to members won't be as effective as you are just encouraging them to send their merits but not encourage them to send it to quality post. This will just affect the merit system in a bad way.

It'll also lead to alright posts being merited and that's not what we're after, I want to be able to merit posts that I think stand out and have taken effort to write.

darklus123

hero member

Activity: 1246

Merit: 588

Quote from: jackg on May 19, 2018, 03:51:02 PM

Won't limiting the spending of sMerits in itself cause people to farm their merits.

If someone told so many users that their sMerit will be decaysed by tomorrow, a lot will probably be more inclined to sell their sMerit immediately and get something from it (which is what we are really trying to avoid here).

Exactly the idea won't solve the problem. Yet instead it might just create a bigger problem because in the end cheaters will always be cheaters.

The current process is not perfect tho good thing about it is that it is way more simple than the proposed one. We have to first solved the root cause of the spamming problem which is not easy by the way

Theb

hero member

Activity: 1680

Merit: 655

I agree with what others have said and I personally think that it is a bad idea as well. Your solution of decaying sMerits won't have your intended effect as this will just encourage this higher rank members to distribute their unspent sMerits to their alt accounts, instead of giving to worthy post. Plus this way of encouragement to members won't be as effective as you are just encouraging them to send their merits but not encourage them to send it to quality post. This will just affect the merit system in a bad way.

trupero_uno

jr. member

Activity: 210

Merit: 1

Quote from: coinlocket$ on May 20, 2018, 05:34:15 PM

Quote from: LoyceV on May 20, 2018, 05:14:18 PM

~
But why?
Merit sources generate 18500 sMerit per 30 days. In the last week, 155344-150773=4571 sMerit was distributed. That extrapolates to 19590 per 30 days, including sMerit from other users than Merit sources. I think many merit sources don't empty their source.
~
If the goal is to give a larger supply to Merit sources, it's much easier to just increase their monthly amount.

This has 2 goals

Increase the merit circulation on the forum, if sMerit will decay users are incentivized to use it, some users got 100 merit and used very close to 0 sMerit
Reduce the abusing, I've reporterd over 100 people here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2896910.260 and if sMerit will decay it's will be easier to find abusers/alts cheaters cause they need to trade to alts in a shorter amount of time and not only when they need to rank up.(if decay is 2 month they can rank only 1 time cause they need activity)

My data are a little different but similar

As you can see we are in one situation where, some merit sourcers doesn't uses the sMerit or users doesn't users the sMerit and the decay can fix this situation when after the airdrop is really hard to get merit for some people.
Consider also that we can could simply lower the level of merit required to advance in rank after the end of the airdop, in my opinion by 20-30%, shitposters will never get, and abusers will always abuses BUT i like more the decay.

I am not sure if sMerit decay to drive merit circulation in the forum, if the issue is account farming with the sMerit then someone is able to distribute the sMerit into their alt account before the limit time. After that, the sMerit circulation will drop significantly because the remaining sMerit just on merit source.

STT

legendary

Activity: 4102

Merit: 1454

Quote from: coinlocket$ on May 20, 2018, 12:03:01 PM

Quote from: jackg on May 19, 2018, 03:51:02 PM

Won't limiting the spending of sMerits in itself cause people to farm their merits.

If someone told so many users that their sMerit will be decaysed by tomorrow, a lot will probably be more inclined to sell their sMerit immediately and get something from it (which is what we are really trying to avoid here).

My idea was to set 2 months for deadline.

People can be busy or ill for 2 months possibly. Some people arent free until the summer or vice versa have far more free time in the winter months then otherwise. Do we really want to penalise on the basis they werent around just now. Im not sure I really agree with that though trying to increase circulation or value use is a good intention.

I was immediately thinking of a Chinese currency experiment that was once conducted (if I remembered it right). Every new note issued was time dated like a cheque and would not be valid like 6 months after, I think it had the effect of decreasing value approaching that deadline. Merit does circulate here also but its also reducing as its spread so maybe this kind of deadline or time limation as proposed would be overkill and reduction is already built in.

Reason why bitcoin has success I think is its durability, it doesnt need tending to or constant management. Once its part of the blockchain it can just be left until useful to the owner. So again time limits would seem to go against that dynamic crypto is part of.

tranthidung

legendary

Activity: 2310

Merit: 4085

Farewell o_e_l_e_o

Each user has his/ her own favorite boards in the forum to join discussions, and the odds to find favorite, merit-deserved threads totally depend upon three components:
1) The strictness of readers: The stricter they are, the less probability they find threads which make them satisfied, then forcing them to send their sMerits away.
2) The quality of threads: The higher quality they are, the bigger opportunities to catch attention of other members and earn merits.
3) The level of abundant shitty posts in the forum: More shitty posts, less chances for users to find good ones because they simply been covered by shits.
Consequently, I don't see reasons to force users to send or automatically decay their sMerits.

coinlocket$

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1517

#1 VIP Crypto Casino

Quote from: LoyceV on May 20, 2018, 05:14:18 PM

~
But why?
Merit sources generate 18500 sMerit per 30 days. In the last week, 155344-150773=4571 sMerit was distributed. That extrapolates to 19590 per 30 days, including sMerit from other users than Merit sources. I think many merit sources don't empty their source.
~
If the goal is to give a larger supply to Merit sources, it's much easier to just increase their monthly amount.

This has 2 goals

Increase the merit circulation on the forum, if sMerit will decay users are incentivized to use it, some users got 100 merit and used very close to 0 sMerit
Reduce the abusing, I've reporterd over 100 people here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2896910.260 and if sMerit will decay it's will be easier to find abusers/alts cheaters cause they need to trade to alts in a shorter amount of time and not only when they need to rank up.(if decay is 2 month they can rank only 1 time cause they need activity)

My data are a little different but similar

As you can see we are in one situation where, some merit sourcers doesn't uses the sMerit or users doesn't users the sMerit and the decay can fix this situation when after the airdrop is really hard to get merit for some people.
Consider also that we can could simply lower the level of merit required to advance in rank after the end of the airdop, in my opinion by 20-30%, shitposters will never get, and abusers will always abuses BUT i like more the decay.

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: coinlocket$ on May 20, 2018, 04:25:17 PM

I'm saying that the decay sMerit should be distributed on addition to the sMerit charge for one source.

But why?
Merit sources generate 18500 sMerit per 30 days. In the last week, 155344-150773=4571 sMerit was distributed. That extrapolates to 19590 per 30 days, including sMerit from other users than Merit sources. I think many merit sources don't empty their source.

Quote

For example if we remove 5000 sMerit for the decay this should be distributed to the sources with a percentage equal to the sMerit distributed up to that moment.

If the goal is to give a larger supply to Merit sources, it's much easier to just increase their monthly amount.

TheBeardedBaby

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 3150

₿uy / $ell ..oeleo ;(

There should be a save side for those who are not active all the time but coming from time to time.
If you have been online total for 14 days /can be in a year time span/ without giving merit then you loose 1 point for example and for every next week you are online and not rewording your smerit you loose X2

It's just an idea, so nobody gets hurt Wink

coinlocket$

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1517

#1 VIP Crypto Casino

Quote from: suchmoon on May 20, 2018, 03:26:22 PM

~
Merit source replenishment is already tied to spending, so it's kinda sorta like decay. Merit source gets their sMerits replenished at the same rate they spend them, up to the maximum allocation. E.g. if a source has 100 sMerits per month allocated but spends only 40 sMerits - they will get only 40 back in the next 30 days.

I'm saying that the decay sMerit should be distributed on addition to the sMerit charge for one source.
For example if we remove 5000 sMerit for the decay this should be distributed to the sources with a percentage equal to the sMerit distributed up to that moment.
If Source X spends 100 sMerit in one day, after 1 month he has 100 sMerit (those spent) + (total decay/total number of sMerit spent in past for all sources * personal merit spent till that moment).
In this way we don't burn the airdroped sMerit but we have a better and probably a more honest redistribution.

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: DdmrDdmr on May 20, 2018, 03:35:45 PM

Implementing a consistent decaying system is not trivial. To be fair, it would need to be based on a FIFO algorithm, and although all the data to manage it is available, I don’t quite see the implementation effort taking place.

There is no FIFO needed. sMerits are fungible. A simple count over a date range should do it.

decay_smerits = smerits_received_until_2_months_ago - total_smerits_sent

If greater than zero, this would be the number of smerits to subtract from user's balance.

DdmrDdmr

legendary

Activity: 2338

Merit: 10802

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. MTwain

Implementing a consistent decaying system is not trivial. To be fair, it would need to be based on a FIFO algorithm, and although all the data to manage it is available, I don’t quite see the implementation effort taking place.

Perhaps a simple system would be that of reassigning (to other sources) the sMerit balance of accounts that have not had an sMerit transaction (in or out) of at least 1 sMerit in the last x months (2 for example as OP suggests).

It’s a bit like what happens if you leave a bank account or credit card with no movements in a given period of time. Normally these get cancelled. In this case, the sMerit balance would be reassigned to a merit source.

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: coinlocket$ on May 20, 2018, 03:06:49 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on May 20, 2018, 02:48:22 PM

OP, I think theymos' formula for the initial allocation was off by a factor of 2. I don't think any Legendary got more than 200 sMerits, Hero - 88 or 87, etc.

As to your idea - I'm fine with decay, at least for the initial airdrop. The new hard-earned merits can stay forever or have a long decay period, 6-12 months perhaps.

Was 400 you can read Theymos post here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.35131159

Your suggestion is maybe better for the decay for only the initial airdop and maybe EVEN a better solution is to give the decay sMerit at sources in propotion at how much they spent till now.

I'm saying that theymos is wrong (blasphemy, I know) because I've been fully active during the year and only got 200.

Merit source replenishment is already tied to spending, so it's kinda sorta like decay. Merit source gets their sMerits replenished at the same rate they spend them, up to the maximum allocation. E.g. if a source has 100 sMerits per month allocated but spends only 40 sMerits - they will get only 40 back in the next 30 days.

coinlocket$

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1517

#1 VIP Crypto Casino

Quote from: suchmoon on May 20, 2018, 02:48:22 PM

OP, I think theymos' formula for the initial allocation was off by a factor of 2. I don't think any Legendary got more than 200 sMerits, Hero - 88 or 87, etc.

As to your idea - I'm fine with decay, at least for the initial airdrop. The new hard-earned merits can stay forever or have a long decay period, 6-12 months perhaps.

Was 400 you can read Theymos post here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.35131159

Your suggestion is maybe better for the decay for only the initial airdop and maybe EVEN a better solution is to give the decay sMerit at sources in propotion at how much they spent till now.

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

OP, I think theymos' formula for the initial allocation was off by a factor of 2. I don't think any Legendary got more than 200 sMerits, Hero - 88 or 87, etc.

As to your idea - I'm fine with decay, at least for the initial airdrop. The new hard-earned merits can stay forever or have a long decay period, 6-12 months perhaps.

Welsh

staff

Activity: 3304

Merit: 4115

Quote from: Flying Hellfish on May 20, 2018, 01:14:08 PM

Decay -> merit pool is just a more complicated way to turn up the tap on source merits IMO. Might as well just up source merit for guys like you that are running out of it!

I think that's fair, and it merit going to waste shouldn't be too much of a problem when there's more merit sources covering different sections, local boards and timezones.

Quote from: Flying Hellfish on May 20, 2018, 01:14:08 PM

Again I don't personally care if they're decayed or not but if they are then I won't have any merit to give in the event I do see a meritorious post, and I've given a little out so far and happily give merit when I see the need. Decaying it will not force me to spend it. It may put more into a pool but it would also limit my ability to use it as I see fit.

If I have it I will use it when I can, if I don't well I can't use it. I say turn up source merit and leave regular users to use it how they see fit!

Quite like that perspective.

Flying Hellfish

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1756

Verified Bernie Bro - Feel The Bern!

Quote from: Welsh on May 20, 2018, 01:04:45 PM

Instead of decaying merit, perhaps having sMerit non sources haven't used go towards a pool that the merit sources can draw off of. Seems a shame that sMerit would go to waste when it could be put to good use for those who are willing to award good quality posts.

Quote from: Flying Hellfish on May 20, 2018, 01:00:40 PM

I don't personally care if merit is "decayed" in some way. Any system of decay will NOT prompt me personally to send more merit. I don't have that much left (not a source) but my problem is always finding decent posts (that aren't repetitive).

I'm not sure decaying them will have the desired result. I would rather they go back to ground from whence they came then give them to shitposters.

I have the opposite problem; Too many posts which require merit Cheesy

Decay -> merit pool is just a more complicated way to turn up the tap on source merits IMO. Might as well just up source merit for guys like you that are running out of it!

Again I don't personally care if they're decayed or not but if they are then I won't have any merit to give in the event I do see a meritorious post, and I've given a little out so far and happily give merit when I see the need. Decaying it will not force me to spend it. It may put more into a pool but it would also limit my ability to use it as I see fit.

If I have it I will use it when I can, if I don't well I can't use it. I say turn up source merit and leave regular users to use it how they see fit!

Welsh

staff

Activity: 3304

Merit: 4115

Instead of decaying merit, perhaps having sMerit non sources haven't used go towards a pool that the merit sources can draw off of. Seems a shame that sMerit would go to waste when it could be put to good use for those who are willing to award good quality posts.

Quote from: Flying Hellfish on May 20, 2018, 01:00:40 PM

I don't personally care if merit is "decayed" in some way. Any system of decay will NOT prompt me personally to send more merit. I don't have that much left (not a source) but my problem is always finding decent posts (that aren't repetitive).

I'm not sure decaying them will have the desired result. I would rather they go back to ground from whence they came then give them to shitposters.

I have the opposite problem; Too many posts which require merit Cheesy

Flying Hellfish

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1756

Verified Bernie Bro - Feel The Bern!

I don't personally care if merit is "decayed" in some way. Any system of decay will NOT prompt me personally to send more merit. I don't have that much left (not a source) but my problem is always finding decent posts (that aren't repetitive).

I'm not sure decaying them will have the desired result. I would rather they go back to ground from whence they came then give them to shitposters (this is not an implication that the OP is a shitposter).

Topic: sMerit deadline - page 2. (Read 786 times)