You wrote a very goot OP, and I think you posted your ideas in a sensible manner,
I tought about it in the past, but didn't wrote anything to avoid offend anyone or being engaged in fights. But you made a good job:I don't see anyone being offended by your ideas being explained.

I have the same feeling about the "old" merits, airdropped or not, and some other made already good points.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on December 17, 2019, 02:05:49 PM

If we are going to decay airdropped merit, it should decay for everyone in a uniform fashion. Decaying at different rates for different people will just add more confusion to the system, not less.

Quote from: ETFbitcoin on December 17, 2019, 04:45:30 PM

It's unnecessary and would create more than problem than it resolves.

If the main goal is to stop signature campaign spammer, then i have another idea such as :
1. Signature limitation based on your merit amount, not your rank
2. Signature only enabled for those who earned x amount of merit within y last month

I would agree in principle on the following:

Decaying merits for everyone on a long enough period (2 years?)
Rank based on "highest merit in history" (sticky, never to be reduced).
As ETF suggested, signature limitation based on current merit amount.

So, if you were very active in the past, you would be legendary anyway, even if not active now (what's the best definition of legenday btw?)
An user like Satoshi would have a legendary rank, even if with few merits.

All the current attributes of each profile would get a different meaning:

Merits would mean something about your "currrent" engagement on the forum and quality of posts.
Rank/trust would refer to your quality history on the forum (best example: satoshi)
Activity would only refers to your seniority on the forum

Only downside i think is a little bit ov overcomplicating something made to be simple. is it worth it?