Down votes are fine, but I'd like to know why. "...I'm just interested to find out if there could be any down side to this in terms of user experience.

Just put a bounty whenever you cross six digits. It's not that hard.

Also, in terms of user privilege, if the swag program ever gets reinstated, people won't have access to the 100k or 200k swag benefits anymore.

@MarkKirby now you've hurt my feelings ;-)

Sorry but you did ask. I do get your concern though, it sucks to be accused of "doing it for the reps" but perhaps just a way to hide rep in the user card could work? I doubt most people who comment things like that would even bother to look at a profile.

I did see this meta.stackexchange.com/questions/72908/… seems mods can make questions into community wikis, if you asked one nicely in chat, they may do it for you, then rep would not be an issue.

@MarkKirby many users (including me) ask an average of a question a day or more, so that's a non-starter. I'm asking about the downsides of a hard cap that active users might elect to exercise.

I've actually come round to this idea a bit, seems I'm the one being reactionary now :) I guess, if it was optional, then it would not be harming anyone. I removed my downvote.

Show the naysayers this: meta.stackexchange.com/a/344054/282094 and this: meta.stackexchange.com/q/9508/282094 - people with epic (and hard earned) reputation don't want it snatched away any more than you would want your questions deleted (or limited one per subject, day, etc.).

Nobody is suggesting take away any rep. They're just suggest not showing it beyond a certain point - there's a massive difference between users with 100 rep and 500 rep on most sites, but no change at all between 99K and 499K (except probably how long they've been active).

@Rob I think your "snatched away" comment is distracting. The title was edited but the text makes it very clear this would be only an option. I've just adjusted the title further to make sure this remains clear.

There is over two dozen pages of users on one site alone that we've yet to hear from, you've given out 33,700 reputation to atone for your sins - your question is no more a distraction than my observation about improving it, and your reply unhelpful.

@Rob "snatching" is a false flag; I've asked only about voluntary.

Ah you're just a victim of the so-called "rep whoring" phenomenon on SE networks. There is a bunch of people that does it and that leaves some frustration to other users who uses the site correctly (well, in my POV). The person that made the comment was just ventilating it. I do understand him but posting that comment is is not advisable. I don't agree with your proposal here. But won't -1 you.

Dont go for a base 10 log. That confuses the hell out of most people, and makes for gazillion questions about why their rep number doeant correspond with their upvotes.

@KarelG you mean you don't agree that users should have the option to cap their rep at 99k? What is it exactly that bothers you about some people exercising such an option?

@uhoh what you have advised is treating the symptom, but not the cause of the issue. That comment should not be posted. Period.

@KarelG I've never met one, and I think that focusing only on your issue is not the best way to interpret my question. However, perhaps you can consider this? Maybe this would address your issue as well?