Do academics want to keep updating papers?
Another thing I wonder is whether academics would at all want to keep updating papers? I could imagine that they like it when a paper or project that is finished, is truely finished.
To speak from my personal experience, I like it when something is published and done. It gives a sense of accomplishment, and opens up time to work on further research.
Going over old papers again, whether it is to review them, or to make changes in response to a reviewers remarks, is never really a fun way to spend time.
In addition, while there should not be too much difference in terms of the number of citations one gets with solid or liquid publications, a CV with many papers, even if they have similar titles, still looks much more impressive than one with only a few, but liquid ones. Even assuming you manage to explain what liquid publications are. So the incentives seem to be wrong.