My concern with the merit system is that I don't think it necessarily identifies "good" posters, but rather identifies posters whose opinions align with those who are considering awarding merit to a particular post.
Let me guess, no proof, just a "
concern"? Many known merit sources have expressed completely different concerns - how to find meritorious posts, how to spread merits fairly, etc. Info about sent merits is publicly available. Please analyze it and show us if what you're saying is really happening or if you're projecting again.
I currently have received more merit than everyone in the forum except for 218 people, and I have not received sufficient merit to achieve Senior Member status, but am a Legendary member only because I was grandfathered in. However I have pretty much always been able to obtain above market rates for signature deals (even after receiving negative trust) when I have been active and been trying to actively sell my signature. Surely there are more than 220 people who make sufficiently good posts to be a Senior Member.
You conveniently forgot the time component. 200 merits since January is roughly on pace with activity. You have no reason to complain.
There is no such thing as "sufficiently good posts to be a Senior Member". You can (but you're not guaranteed to) earn merits if you make good posts. Stop subverting this extremely simple concept into your account-farming POV.