Do tell. So, is it your belief standing is more important than potential breakthroughs - from whatever source? The amateur or lay types are at the mercy of the system™, and can only make contributions at the pleasure of the system™? The system then can, if it chooses, cherry pick what is good science? Do you see any potential for abuse here?
Let's just think a little about this. An incredible number of hoaxes, scams, errors and frauds await he who accepts every scheme that walks in the door. Be glad a filtering process exists at all. The noise level beyond the system makes every good idea simply one grain of sand on the beach; you would never find a good idea in the midst of all that chaos. We are already familiar with the popular 'breakthroughs.' It is remarkably easy to spot the bad ones. Standing is worth the trouble to get credentialed.