- Everyone could decide who gets to be a merit source. "Applicants" would still gather at least 10 posts for evaluation, and the users could vote for them. Those with more votes would become a merit source. This is far from being ideal, but it is still less "centralized".
- Users would be given a small amount of sMerit, based on their activity (still not ideal, because Merit would be less valuable this way)
- There could be a new type of sMerit that users could purchase, and then use to evaluate content.
I think the third option is better and I will explain why. We all buy books, newspapers, movies, music, etc.
We buy these things because we like it's content, and by buying them, we are expressing just that. So I see no problem in buying sMerit, and then using it to express my support for some of the posts I read, because I liked them. Money is used to express value, so this is exactly what would be happening with this option.
To end this post, I will repeat that I like what this system provides (the ability to judge content), but I think the ability to give Merit should be as open as possible (without trivialization of course). Maybe I will never run out of sMerit, and what I think it could be a problem will never become one, but right now these are the concerns I have about this system.
I actually like this idea. I mean at this point a merit is basically like a reddit gold. People should be able to just buy it to reward good posts. As far as leveling up goes my feeling is the majority won't be leveling up because the content is just average to poor. If anything I would love to have another setting to never ever see anything except 'merited' posts. I can't wait for the campaigns to switch to merit rather than activity but it would have been better if everyone just started with 0 merits and have to earn back their ranks rather than be forced to read the higher up's shitpost by default.