Who exactly is going to compensate us for the time spent giving every single proposal ever made by anyone a fair shake, given that we are no longer permitted to

Who exactly is going to compensate us for the time spent giving every single proposal ever made by anyone a fair shake, given that we are no longer permitted to use heuristic shortcuts like "checking if the person has ever made something in the past" or "evaluating their formal training" or "acknowledging that they have a long term history of being a crank"? An author has a promising idea but asks for people to invest early in order to iterate the idea to the point where it's strictly superior to existing alternatives. Investors want to know that the idea will bare fruit, and that the author will not abandon it. How do they evaluate the author's capacity to see the project through without resorting to the author's past history of seeing projects through, references, or credentials? Moreover, what stops malicious actors from inundating us with garbage that takes longer to refute than to produce? We can't ban spammers because banning them is based on their past history, not what they're producing now. What if their next post isn't spam and has value? Surely these considerations mandate that even if you believe people are insufficiently charitable to new entrants in the market of ideas, you can't throw the babies (credentials, reputation, audience) out with the bathwater. This is a good opportunity to position yourself as having made a provocative statement that will, of course, require some concessions to reason.