[doomrobo]

FWIW this seems to work in some fields. The standard preprint site for all cryptography is eprint.iacr.org, which has no requirement for institutional affiliation. And even so, I find the signal to noise ratio to be very high. Maybe it's the fact that it's niche, but idk

[llwu]

Even if eprint.iacr.org did include the analogue of viXra's content (which I've heard it mostly doesn't, other than one time that famous cryptographer whose name I forgot got old and published a crank paper, which IIRC was quickly resolved), it would also include the analogue of arXiv's content, since it seems to be the leading pre-print server in that area.

viXra by comparison is fighting an uphill battle since they get only the arXiv runoff. Making an inclusive venue that's actually worth publishing in would require attracting not only the runoff from other venues but also poach the best people from said venues.

Inclusiveness in research is something I've always wanted to solve, but it seems really hard - if e.g. 10% of the incumbent elite are good and 1% of the outcasts are good (and the other 99% is mostly cranks), then the task is to get the respective 10% and 1% to mingle somehow without the rest. And I'm not even convinced arXiv has any inclusivity problem at all - it's more places like Nature that have inclusivity problems. viXra might be barking up the wrong tree.

[hannob]

eprint.iacr.org has no institutional requirement, but it does have minimal standards. It takes a few days for them to review. It's not a real peer review, but they check that you don't just publish gibberish or spam or something obviously wrong.

(I have published there without an affiliation to a research institution.)