10k subscribers is already a relatively low requirement number compared to other communities, and I think that's quite generous (some argue overly generous). However, requiring only a meager 1000 subscribers is hardly a requirement at all. By then, we'd be accepting about 25% of this community as VIPs.
And, as everyone pointed out, making VIP more accessible diminishes its credibility and legitimacy as a rank. They would no longer be VIPs, but just IPs or merely just Ps. At that point, we'd need a dedicated Youtuber rank and a VIP rank for the most distinguished persons, and I can tell you that that just isn't going to happen. VIPs would be as prominent as Diamond and Platinum players.
I considered your rationale for lowering the subscriber requirement, though...
As much of a jerky thing it is to say, none of these are the community's concern. It's not our initiative to boost someone's Youtube confidence, to help them get noticed, or to make their channel more popular. That is the Youtuber's responsibility to do, not ours. They must make a channel that is worthy of being recognized, thus we will reward them for their participation with a rank; this proposal suggests swapping the process thus putting the wagon before the horse.
This is what I don't understand. If you want a greater variety of people and channels being chosen for VIP, then why attack the subscriber count limit? You should have made THIS your main point of argument, accepting VIPs for their content and activity rather than their subscriber count, as opposed to, "make the count 1k". Because now you've framed your argument incorrectly, and the hidden assumption here is that you are only proposing this amendment in order for you to get VIP despite failing to meet the current requirements.
All in all, this would do more harm than good to us.
