I am totally aware of April fools, but let's assume it were true. I see a fundamental contradiction hidden in these adjustments. I fully agree that reading other members' posts is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for writing your own qualified comments. However, your proposal assumes that reading is always rewarded with merits, although you can also read different things, including shit posts.

While writing posts, on the other hand, is a priori considered something that should be punished by depriving of merits. Although a written post can be much better than what a person had to read before. Why then should writing not be encouraged? Such moments lead to false implicature, as if reading is always a positive and useful activity, while posting is instantly associated with spam.

If this proposal were brought up for serious discussion (although I suspect that today everyone is in a too cheerful mood for that and I will not be taken seriously), then I would not support it. After all, in my opinion, the existing merit system indirectly motivates reading, and this is even can be considered a priority. Because without prior study of already available information, without knowing who has already said something on the topic that interests you, it is not possible to create a high-quality post that would eventually be evaluated by others with merits.

P.S. I suppose, my merit count would be much lower after this post