These days, merits in last 120 days is the basic eligibility criteria for signature campaigns. I agree with that because such people did contribution toward this community but how about appreciating the people who contribute to bitcoin itself.
I remember CM yahoo once said like "slots in campaign is not a right but a privilege". If you agree on this, then I guess long term holders deserve slots in campaigns.
I agree that people will cheat like a long term holders and manager may find hard time to track these and while accepting new participants, managers can easily check about merit history but confirming about long term holder is not an one minute work. This is the reason, I think about reservations in slots as minimum as 10%.
This idea help on reducing selling pressure on bitcoin market if weekly payout from campaigns reaches exchanges on regular basis and in significant percentage.
Also, this may help on reducing spam in this forum because people who treat campaigns as income source may move on.
I am not expecting this idea will get warm welcome from this community but if this topic is able to seed any new idea then I guess that would be more than enough!
Looking for your thoughts on this....
Some clarifications:
I am not assuming that all holders are good posters.
Holding is not about 1 or 2 BTC holding but about what we did with previous campaign rewards and what we are going to do with current rewards.
How could you even think about this idea of holding before joining a campaign like I don't understand how you are thinking about holding, does it means everyone must hold or someone has to decide how you used your paid fund?
I think the merits system is good enough to filter good and quality poster, in fact to me sometimes merits doesn't factors out how good someone could be in posting. Like I know, there are people who are good in various areas of the forum and when posting they actually contributes more to that which they knows and we may likely have good posters in some sections where merits are hardly spend such as the gambling board, politics and society and other few board that doesn't spread merits.
If people are posting that area and doesn't receive merits does it mean they aren't quality poster. I love the way most managers evaluate their applicants and participants because if judging and summarizing by merits alone they would miss quality posters l, so holding shouldn't be a criteria to accept participants or we can say that the manager can likely hold funds back to pay participants by monthly if this could be the case here, then it will be considered although some people may not buy the idea of monthly payment because the price might change either decreased or increased where the manager has to spend much in paying their participants.