The greatest tension in this website is that StackExchange is designed to be "gamified", rewarding users who answer questions well with little positive reinforcements that they helped people. The prevailing notion is that this is to the detriment of MSE specifically, as nearly any question worth asking has already been asked and answered, and there is no lack of conversation on the meta board of how to shut off the demand for answers in the present and into the future.
Perhaps it would be best to address the problem by trimming the supply of answers rather than the demand. If we removed the gamification aspects from this SE, there would no longer be an extrinsic motivation for people to answer questions, so there would be fewer people trying to answer PSQs before they were closed for lack of context. To give another example, you wouldn't see so many people flooding the review queues with worthless edits, because there wouldn't be a badge for them to chase for doing that. Ultimately, with luck, the community would wean itself down to established users who were only here for a love of mathematics and a desire to optimize the database to a useful compendium of elementary mathematical knowledge.
Another advantage of removing reputation is that it would lessen the suspicion that people who are helpful on this website are doing so to accumulate reputation points. One of the principals of this website is that we shouldn't delete questions with "good" answers. I don't think it's a secret that we actually do that pretty frequently. I can't get inside the heads of the people who make those deletion votes, so I apologize if I'm wrong. But I've gathered over the years that a motivation is to discourage users who attempt to pad their reputation by giving answers to borderline questions that are popular with the userbase. But if there were no reputation to pad, then we might look at good answers as the actual boon to the website that they are rather than a weed that needs to be pulled.