I think a meritocracy in which you can buy yourself in is flawed. I know you plan on implementing a reputation scheme but i think this is flawed, too.
In bitcoin their are really 3 groups of political entities: users, miners and devs. I think this year has shown that it is a good thing to have this seperation between the devs and miners, just as we have a seperation of legislative (~devs) and executive (~miners) powers in constitutional states. If these two powers are in dispute their will be a hard fork and the problem is thus escalated to the users, which then take the role of the judges. The users (represented by wallet-providers and exchanges) than vote by choosing to running the software of a particular party of devs. So they put their trust in devs and not miners, just as we trust politicians which we elect and not the police.
With the initial scheme and even more so with the planned reputation scheme, you are giving too much power to those who gain profit by the system. This will on the long run lead to decisions that are bad for the users as these forces will try to maximize their profit.
Probably this problem can be fixed within the system before the corruption becomes to bad though. At some point there needs to be a decoupling of the decision making from the gaining of profits. One idea would be to have the voting chips as separate token with fixed supply that are not freely trade-able but need a majority vote (or a user activated hard fork) to be transfered.