The concept of a reputation score is fundamentally flawed. Each user holds others in repute based on their personal values, not those of the community. The current rep score is a collective assessment, as well as being simply a commodity you can buy, so only approximates relevance to individuals (even if you ignore that it is just bling).

UA is better, because it is somewhat based on how an account is interacted with by other accounts, and this reduces it's commoditization, but it still isn't personally relevant to users with unique values. A better mechanism would be reputation based on accounts each user itself regards as reputable. For example, I reckon you have good sense, so your real reputation to me is fairly high. Accounts you regard highly would then be tentatively assessed as potentially of good repute, but my own personal regard would eventually refine that score based on my personal values in the event I interact with that account directly.

Basically, reputation should be derived from the reputation those we hold in high regard provide to recommend them to us, and then refined by our personal values after we gain familiarity directly. My reputation to you would be different than it is to another user, and yours to me different than to others as well.

This is how reputation actually works IRL, and why it's useful. The current collective model of reputation is only useful for those seeking to mold themselves into the collective, and has no value at all as long as it can just be purchased.

Thanks!