New FIDE rating rules to compute for players < 2000

Hello Everyone!
Could anybody please share your opinion about the recent FIDE one time rating rise for players under 2000 FIDE.
How do you think it'll affect the whole picture and what consequences one should expect in the long run?

I feel it'll get much harder to increase the rating for those players between 1400-2000 because the rating gap has been decreased. Because the floor rating was 1000 and the difference between 1000 and 1400 was 400 rating points whereas now 1000 rated player would be around 1400 and 1400 would be around 1600 so the gap is only 200 points.

@The_ThreeChecks said in #2:

I feel it'll get much harder to increase the rating for those players between 1400-2000 because the rating gap has been decreased. Because the floor rating was 1000 and the difference between 1000 and 1400 was 400 rating points whereas now 1000 rated player would be around 1400 and 1400 would be around 1600 so the gap is only 200 points.

Doesnt that make increasing rating easier or am i missing something

@Ben10Tenyson said in #3:

Doesnt that make increasing rating easier or am i missing something

I think it would, but then you reach harder competition. I think the point is to help prospective players rise to the top, like testing out of a class. If you have 2 groups, and one group is coached by a GM/IM, that is very different than say the coach in the second group who is like a person who played well in high school 10-20 years ago

Chances are their players' performance is not going to be as strong as the GM/IM's players. If there were a national event, a 1000 from theirs could probably beat a 1400 from the lower ranking coach's players. So, when the winning side returns to their hometown and play for more FIDE or national rated events, will they continue to move forward or be held back because they have better coaches?

To adequately evaluated lower rated players we need to assess play on not just win, lose, or draw. We need to look at he concepts 1000-1500 should attain compared to 1500-2000. Game memorization is one thing I wouldn't stress on 1000 players. However, 1500s might want to do this if not earlier. Doesn't even have to be a complete game, but we need to get away from this idea that the way we assess 2000+ players is to be applied in the same way as 1000-2000.

Will it be easier or harder or remain the same for an untitled player to become a titled player?

@Knight-Crimson said in #5:

Will it be easier or harder or remain the same for an untitled player to become a titled player?

I don't think it will be harder. It's not a measure I see to evaluate higher end players, it is a way to bring lower level players up the ranks quicker. As I mentioned earlier, a 1000 player with a good coach may be playing with other very strong 1000 players in their local area, whereas the opposite with a 1400 player in a group of weak 1400s in their area won't perform as well against 1000 players.

We need to realize that 1000 in one place is not the same as 1000 in another. There is no 1:1 correspondence. This is why it is possible to get a GM currently when your rating is not 2500 but it is still awarded at times.

Difficulty would only come if those players who are pushed forward continue to excel and overcome the usual 1800-2000 competition.

Seems like a scheme to get 50 million new members paying fees believing they can reach 2000 easier.

Will a 1500 level player in 2025 be the same strength as one in 2000 or 2010?