I'm not 100% convinced about paying Wikipedia editors with GRC. I like the core concept about this idea but I feel there are too many aspects that need to be considered to avoid exploit/abuse of such a system.

Even with a secure system, there remain many questions, e.g. who gets rewarded and for what exactly? How can we measure editor performance properly?

But most importantly: the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit afaik, which means their current system relies on donations - which also has a legal framework. So would it even be possible to pay Wikipedia editors with GRC or would this violate current terms and conditions the Wikimedia Foundation has agreed to?

The same goes for projects like arXiv.org - however if we are about to do something like this, I would prefer arXiv over Wikipedia because it doesn't have issues with content quality. The peer review process is high standard and well accepted among the scientific community. This would provide an easier implementation because exploits are non-existant imho.