Ok, so sMerit points will be used up eventually and not refreshed. This stops people from giving merit for new posts that they think should be merited, they have to wait until they gain some merit to credit someone's post for merit.

Scenario:
Peter asked a question in a forum, he has received 3 quality replies from 3 different person. Each of the comment has helped him. However since he can only give 1 merit points, the other 2 contributors are not rewarded. This scenario only affects Peter and may not be helpful to other people, so why would other people notice and give merit to the contributors?

What if someone thinks that a post has added value to him/her but another party doesnt think it's "good enough"?

How to justify a post is deemed worthy of merits when everyone has a different opinion?

Personally i feel that "RANK" != "Influencer". Currently all aged account has a very high rank because of the number of posts that they have made till date... this new merit system is suddenly implemented to ranking based on "influence" that are deemed worthy. It is not a level playing field since aged old accounts that have high ranks are "out of the game".

I would suggest each thread to also have a nominated pool of merits to be earned so that participants can work towards one common goal/topic to earn their merits.

The cryptocurrency community will grow even larger 3 months from now, the forum will face more spammers as the numbers will always continue to grow.

The sMerit points is like a "halving" system, you are only going to be more reserved in giving merits since the rate of accumulating merits is typically lesser overtime.

I have another question: what does posts with the highest merit even mean since earlier posts are receiving higher merit points as the ability of giving merits by members are higher?