I'm against this. In fact, I can't find the original questions/answers anymore, but a number of people have seriously suggested abolishing reputation on Area 51.
Why? It sets all the wrong incentives. Area 51 is a staging site; it's supposed to be a place for people to help define and promote sites that they are passionate about. If somebody actually cares about a site, they don't need the reputation incentive. Reputation only seems to be encouraging mass duplication (check the number of music proposals) and rapid-fire proposal- and question-spamming.
Of the above two, proposals are by and large the most important source of reputation there, and it's actually a bizarre system to me because starting a proposal is so far removed from actually contributing to that proposal or more importantly, supporting the site itself. Proposal-spamming is a genuine problem, and we've actually had notable instances of sock puppets trying to game the system to boost their proposals.
Basically, reputation on Area 51 encourages people to participate in proposals that they don't really actually care about, and while that look like a good thing in the short term, it's actually extremely harmful in the long term, because the new sites need committed members to survive, not drive-by rep-whores.
With incentives being as awkward as they are on Area 51, I really don't think we should be calling attention to the misguided notion that it's some sort of reputation game. I'm not going to advocate for the removal of reputation, but I definitely don't want to see any more attention drawn to it.