jeanguy2
I think that we're essentially on the same page

If WCG has a Points system then it should be both timely and accurate and demonstrably fair.

WCG is different to many of the other projects using BOINC which have a single focus, whereas WCG is itself a host with multiple projects. Differences between the WCG projects in terms of Points are plain to see but I doubt they are easily reolved.

With the caveat that the Ripple Labs "surge" is largely history, and we shouldn't get too hung up on it, I would make two observations:

At the time we're talking about (late 2013/early 2014) the operation of the Points system was not an issue, with the exception of CEP2 (see one of SekeRob's last posts ) As far as Ripple Lab members were concerned my advice was to ignore the CEP2 opt-in. My problem with They could not fix the WCG point system for Ripple Labs is that it wasn't the Points system that was at fault, rather Ripple Lans inability to access individual members data to determine the XRP allocation because they relied on screem scraping.

Whatever the reason(s) for the ending of the XRP giveaway, there is no doubt that the resultant loss of crunching power was a huge blow to WCG.

Finally with regard to the 2013 Member Study:

Both you and I, and a number of others are in agreement on this. I have posted several times applauding the undertaking of the survey but stressing the need for it to be repeated on a regular basis.

The survey provided a snapshot of member attitudes at a momemt in time. Since the survey has informed development over the last 15 months surely it follows that it should be repeated to assess how the new developments have addressed member concerns and how those concerns and attitudes have changed.

One survey in 8 years is not enough!