But I believe that you are just encouraging members to make unworthy posts and paying them.
Running a campaign for too long require benefits back from the funds spent to run it. If the team did not see any good returns from the campaign, they would have ended it.
I believe for a user who is making 20 posts a week earning 5 merits from 300 posts is not a difficult and that earning atleast 5 merits in the last 120 days is a reasonable measure to identify a user as not being a shitposter.
I agree with you but there are different between shitposts and goodposts but there are a range in between: a post that is not good enough to earn merits but is not too bad to call as a shitpost.
I think you guys should seriously look into the participants and promote your site wisely. But this is just my thoughts. You can run the campaign however you like because its your money.
You see above there is complaints from ex-participant because of was kicked out. If what you supposed will be taken, there will be more complaints. On the other hand, participants of long campaigns are likely grandfather, you can see it in many long lasting campaign. Bitsler (ended months ago), Crypto-games, ie. If they don't break rules of the campaign, and the forum, they will keep their spots.
It is the same when a new spot opens up and many applicants apply for it. It is never the case that an applicant with highest number of earned merits will be chosen. The manager and the company have their criteria and needs to choose the best applicant for their needs. We likely don't know what are their criteria.