To me there could really be no true epistocracy, the rule of the "knowers" as there is just too much to be known, too much that changes, too much that stays the same no matter the changes, deciphering all that is near impossible...for instance the idea of technocrats, which would be a subset of an epistocracy, is scary. That is what is many have attempted, say in economics, but they cannot know...and yet they must make decisions based on "knowing", but simply cannot know enough. How many diapers do we need to produce next year? Who knows or can know... we can take history and averages, but those are individual decisions being made by potential future parents... the most knowledgeable is the market itself, not the technocrat.
While I think it, perhaps, is a bad choice, I think I would choose the rule of the wealthy as they have proven they "know" how sufficient to negotiate real life situations in positive manners...at least here in free countries...not talking those who make money illicitly...those who produce ideas and products are who I am speaking of, and not the inheritors of wealth unless they are also using that to produce more ideas and products.
People who think they can "know" are scary...I think one can be generally wise, sapient, but cannot know...its like predicting the weather, there are just too many variables involved to actually know beyond a potentially "good" guess.