talking about the constructive post, all my post are good thoughts before I send them. and please if you can help me with the link to that services section

Wow look, a real prove of a member that can rank up in the merit era. I bet it feels great right?  There are more members that ranked up in merit era, you just dont know because you are not active enough to search or roam in the meta section.

Right, unused sMerit is another topic that needs to be addressed. Maybe start with more a broader distribution of sMerit sources and gradually weed out those who do not use their sMerits

It probably depends on the visibility and usefulness of your tutorial. Personally, if I stumble upon a tutorial that I deem useful for other people (even if it is not useful for me), I will certainly merit it.

It's not a rule of thumb, it's a very specific suggestion for a very specific situation.  I suspect this has a lot to do with alt accounts and people's indifference to leaving merit for their fellow bitcointalker--but I could be completely wrong. In any case, I've given out all my merit a couple times over since the system started, and people should be giving out theirs and not hoarding it.  If people don't, then it's going to get even harder to rank up, and that's going to be bad news for the merit system itself.  That will mean it's not working at all.

I have merited your post DdmrDdmr because I agree with the general direction that you are going with it, and that you have explained your points fairly well.

My main point of agreement is the concept of incentivizing the spending of smerits; however, I have to quibble with any seemingly premature assessment of placing a timeline expiration or even suggesting that members have any obligation to go out and discover meritorious posts....

Maybe you are describing requirements that sources might have that would differ from regular members?  Sure, theymos has complete discretion regarding criteria to become a source or to maintain source status but it seems that sources do have more obligations to spend their merits because they will expire if not used in 30 days (at least according to theymos's description of the algorithm).  I would think that theymos is capable of getting some kind of handle regarding how much sources might be spending or spreading out their merits and whether he believes what they are doing is worthy of keeping their source status.. and even he may have some other criteria that he considers that are purely his subjective criteria rather than merit based for merit sources (if that makes any sense).

Regarding regular users, I really like the idea of something approaching complete discretion, and that may apply to a member's decision to never, ever, ever spend his/her smerits - but even within that context of nearly complete discretion about how or whether to use merits it seems likely that theymos has tools that he could use to incentivize the spending of individual smerits without ever really needing to employ decay... because in my thinking decay seems a step too far, and maybe even might be something that is considered after several other available tools are employed (including the tool of threatening smerit decay... hahahahhahaha, which he has already employed at least once).

And 80% of your merit came from posting about... merit. So all I have to say is:

Dear Pot,

You are black.

Signed,
Kettle

Wow its really good system and also after this system there are lots of change on spamming on this forum.if people don't do good quality of post those account are not upgrade to higher rank.

Hahahahaha...

Lucky you.  You will be able to remain a full member forever, perhaps.   

I concur that sMerit decay and eventual loss many not resolve the issue of a numerous amount of users still withholding large amounts of sMerit and not joining in the game of awarding often enough to guarantee the overall system goal (cut down on spam and abusers, whilst not strangling the legit users that try to rank-up).
Taking a leap, many fidelity programs apply some sort of points decay system overtime, if the accumulated amount is not redeemed. Fidelity programs nevertheless have the incentive of points being usable for our personal gain, so spending them is in our favour and thus does not need too much of a shift.

Here though, the incentive to use sMerit is down to believe or morality, with nothing tangible directly being gained from awarding sMerit (yes, there are those that benefit in fraudulent ways, and yes there is an overall benefit if spam is reduced and reasoning is stepped-up three steps).

If sMerit did eventually decay, it would be like a constant token burn, thus making sMerit more valuable to those that believe in it or require it to rank-up.
Even though it is decentralized by nature of usage, there does have to be an overall aggregate look upon the amount of sMerit potentially awardable forum wide, to avoid the above.
Perhaps instead of decay it should be transferred to merit “sub-sources” (to be defined how to designate them, how much sMerit they get to award, etc.), so that total overall forum potential sMerit does not fall below a certain threshold.