For winning an online tournament, regardless of the number of participants, I would suggest awarding 500 points, 400 points for second place, and 300 points for third place.

Let's say, I, Vasya Pupkin, and Pupka Vaskin get together and hold a tournament (or maybe we don't even hold it – we just write that we played), and we get 500, 400, and 300 points, and we like it. A week later, we hold another tournament.
As soon as loopholes appear in the rating manipulation, they will be used. Let's say, it's the end of the season, and you urgently need 500 points in the shortest amount of time. Right now, there is no loophole – the rating can only be increased by playing and winning.
Therefore, a large tournament should award a lot of rating points, and a small tournament should award fewer. Otherwise, the idea of this discussion will be nullified.

That is, in your opinion, winning a tournament with 16 participants is that easy?! What kind of 125 points are you suggesting to award for that? Is that equivalent to two wins?! Even winning a tournament with 8 people is not easy. I understand that you gave an example randomly, but I would still like to hear the opinions of players regarding the size of the bonuses for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places!

There is a difference between tournaments with 8 and 32 people. At least in terms of the time spent in real life. In the first case, the winner will play 3-4 matches, and in the second case, 9-11. How can there be any equalization here?