> Sounds like a recipe for serious inequity to me

If it works better, it works better. The problem with the society method is it didn't work better than a decentralised scientific system.

One of the weaknesses to such a system is human nature. We want to believe, which leads to farces like Piltdown man, which was a farce by a man called Charles Dawson (not Darwin, not the natural selection guy, though I did a double take at first), against the Geological Society and society at large. The farce wasn’t definitively disproven until 41 years later, which is quite the downside risk of the gentlemen’s club research group gatekeeping scholarly research, but the more things change, the more they stay the same. This is a good thing which seems like it’s in response to grumblings about irreproducibility and bias, but those issues will likely always be with us and must be considered anew each time an experiment is designed, and each time a print run is cut.

I’m having trouble finding a downside besides vote buying or voting rings, now that which way one has voted is now attributable. Can you think of any risks under the new system?