It doesn't seem that anyone is saying that we need to get rid of the (admittedly valuable and proven) peer-review model of publishing in journals. Or that this

It doesn't seem that anyone is saying that we need to get rid of the (admittedly valuable and proven) peer-review model of publishing in journals. Or that this is uniformly better for all use-cases, esp. those that peer-review excels at. It's merely a supplement to peer-reviewed journals that has some nice characteristics, for some use-cases, which has been beneficial, to some researchers, in some fields.