Quote from: LoyceV on March 04, 2018, 12:59:14 PM

Although I agree that we need more Merit sources, it can't necessarily be concluded from this. Many users^* distributed Merits to their alt-accounts, and this should end when their initial free Merits dry up.

^* From the Top-merited users, recent merit, many users have red trust for Merit trading (from the first 10: 452: pitipawn, 283: RichDaniel, 251: saulzaents and 151: niknik1966), and many are suspected to have traded Merit (such as Chachacoin17).

Quote from: TheQuin on March 04, 2018, 11:07:12 AM

Another suggestion as what to look for: Accounts that suddenly received the required amount of merit to rank up. Like this one that took only 13 days to get the 150 merit required to go from Full Member to Sr Member. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3052556.msg31426338#msg31426338

It's even more suspicious if they stop getting new Merit right after they've reached the rank requirement.

Yes a certain percentage should be abuses, and I was trying to extract some rule to distinguish them.
In addition to focusing on the transaction with precisely necessary amount for rank up, and red trust, the pitipawn's merit history provides another rule; almost all the threads s/he was merited are "(Deleted/Off-limits/Ignored)".

Quote from: TheQuin on March 04, 2018, 11:07:12 AM

I have no idea how easy that is to write a script to spot,

At this moment these rules are checked by human, maybe there is some nice way to code.