Seasonal ranking.

The permanent rating does a pretty good job of showing the strength of players. People who inflate their rating by playing against weaker opponents will still not rise above a certain level. The top 50 players in the permanent rating are almost all strong players. What would reducing the seasonal rating or adding bonus points achieve? It would only further separate the top players from the average and weaker players.
I once discussed this topic with Pete, suggesting that we increase the rating coefficient for Tournaments. But now I realize that the current rating is quite adequate in reflecting the players' positions.

Added 5 minutes later

The seasonal rating doesn't need to be removed from the overall rating; simply reduce the coefficient of points awarded compared to tournament matches. The criterion for evaluating whether a tournament is "worthy" or "unworthy" should be based on whether it is an official or unofficial tournament.

Again, there may be a worthy unofficial tournament, and an official M200 tournament, where you can get lucky and win. And as was written, there will be a new argument about which tournaments to include and which not to.
I am not against changes at all, but please provide a proper assessment of the drawbacks of this rating system, with an example. And who will be in charge of this...?
P.S. In football, for example, the coefficient is only doubled at the World Cup. For us, the mega-tournament is the Fantasy Battle, and that's where we could introduce bonus points or an increased coefficient. But this would create more hassle in the calculations than benefit in the rating, as it already adequately reflects the top positions.