>3. It puts the effort on the readers to decide whether each paper is valuable, and particularly scientifically valuable, for which most readers will be unequipped.

You say it as if replication crisis doesn't exist and publish or perish is not a thing.

Actually, the replication crisis shows how difficult (or underinvested) the process of reviewing is.

Removing this (often very basic) peer review doesn't somehow fix the problem. The solution lies in more thorough reviews and replication studies, not in everyone deciding for themselves.