This is the kind of depth of thinking that we want!
The monetisation of code is only one side of the equation. I think I made it clear that the reward calculation for code has to be STRONGLY modulated by reputation, which is peer review. The more, and more weight of reputation, as well as tied up stake, that votes on your code, the more you get, the more you rise. This may sound at first like a recipe for a circle jerk, but it doesn't take that many, opposed and competing peers to smack up such stake-powered nonsense. To earn on the code, you have to raise your rep, to have influence on the code, you have to raise your rep. It is primary.
Some idiot comes along with zero coding rep, and they have only 0.000001% reputation, even if they have a million tokens, they still can only up you by one, and because they have zero rep, they don't raise your rep that much either. The two formulas have to be balanced, and it will take some simulations to play out how it will factor and grow.
I don't think anyone has really taken that seriously the idea of really building an effective reputation system. I think there could be attempts out there, but probably their domain is too generalised to be useful. Having a constraint of 'generally recognised skill at software development' narrows it down a lot and gives a lot more possibility for peer regulation, polycentric, to be effective. I mean, we have already seen with Steem that to a large degree, the reputation system does help stop spammy, scammy, trololololing. The interface does not allow it to be separated from rewards calculations. I am not sure if this is good, or bad. Prima facie, it seems like a good idea to bind them together, but then you have questions about ratios.
Probably curves matter too - as in, similar to the old scheme here, but perhaps differently summed, related to the volume under the curve, as well as the total volume, over time, and other things.
I am of course thinking through it all as I go, but I have tasks to execute in sequence, and right now, I'm building a simple fork, and proposing a specific set of edits, and the chain basically being renewed, so there is an opportunity to fix the database system that is now threatening to destroy the platform. But I think as important as this, is that the premined stake, and the people holding it, not only violates common sense and justice, it also is technically illegal in at least US federal jurisdiction, that the maturity and personalities involved further compound the issue.