You've made a mistake that, frankly, is easy to make if one has a good opinion of oneself and one's work: that it should be obvious to everyone else that you've done a good job and deserve praise.

The problem is that in a true meritocracy, which I think PM tries to be, self-rating one's merit highly tends to set off everyone's Dunning-Kruger alarms, i.e., a suspicion that the person self-promoting is instead someone who is incompetent enough to not actually understand that they are indeed incompetent.

Please be clear here: I am not saying you are incompetent: I am talking about a social phenomenon.

In a meritocracy, those who do not specifically rate themselves highly, but instead provide repeated examples of competence where the community can see them without self-promotion, tend to be perceived as more competent and trustworthy and therefore achieve higher status.

This translates into letting one's work speak for itself, and allowing others to make the judgement as to worth. (This is why you can't ++ your own posts, for example.)

You're getting downvotes because you are saying, essentially, that this primary means of establishing status in a meritocracy is invalid, and that your modification to the metric is correct. Sometimes rebelling is useful, but trying to simultaneously rebel and participate leads to conflict.

I really can't give you any sure-to-work advice; I can only say that attempting to achieve status by working counter to the social norms involved in establishing status will probably fail. If you want to promote something, show how it can solve problems and help people; simply claiming it's great will lead to distrust.