Deleted

There are less than 1k people with level 8-10. Do you think that is too many? Nothing weird about more people in higher levels - people on that level are not going anywhere.

Allowing only good games - I can only support this. No more pixelated junk, platformers, dungeon crawlers and other stupid bullshit...
Hell yeah! Sign me up!

You signed up for lack of quality control when you agreed to use Steam. That's on Valve, not SteamGifts. :P
Though we're moving more and more toward outright bigotry in some of the recent game releases, and that's.. far more concerning. :/

And this won't disappear, CV isn't the glue bonding people within.

It will, in at least some small part, if people feel they're being punished for avoiding a deeply flawed system. The CV isn't the issue- it certainly isn't for me- but I'd personally be far less inclined to utilize the site if I felt that sort of sentiment was being promoted by cg. It's just distasteful. Though, amusingly, my alternative approach in light of that context would simply be to never make another public or open-invite giveaway again. So either way, I can assure you that at least one person would feel less inclined to contribute to the open community, due to that feeling of punished for not wanting to be punished for no reason. :P
I believe you misinterpreted my sentiments to be a statement that the site itself would crumble, which wasn't what I was expressing. Just that the approach you suggested is itself a distasteful one, and that better options exist (and have already been suggested in the past).

Rewarding wider reach more is only one facet of this method. More important is that games desired more (witcher 3) give higher "reward" than typical "+1 library" fodder.

That's faulty. You'd primarily be rewarding low level and longer duration giveaways (as well as either rewarding or punishing multicopy, depending on if you didn't divide benefit or did divide benefit by copy amount), as high interest is typically secondary to those two factors. People've already suggested using a combination of community wishlist and # of giveaways already made for that game as a premise for dynamic valuation, and that makes a whole lot more sense than your approach. :X

Again, (and CV considerations be damned) there're simply less distasteful and more functional suggestions that've already been made on this topic.

More important is that games desired more (witcher 3) give higher "reward" than typical "+1 library" fodder.

Also, that's elitist as heck. There are some obscure games, and some newly released games, that so rarely get giveaways, that I value far higher than nearly all AAA games. These games often only get 100 to 300 entries even after weeks in public level 0, just because of lack of awareness. Nevermind that DLCs for any game are rarely offered and typically to very low entry count- making DLCs (especially obscure, store-removed, or pricey ones) that much more noteworthy to encounter on the site. Why should GA creators be punished for those amazing gifts? Why should someone be rewarded for putting up a T1 AAA game?

All you're doing is changing the dynamic of which games get exploitative focus, and at the detriment of things that we want to encourage being put up for giveaway.

As I said- there are better options. :)

mmk. that still doesn't really change anything though.

what i mean to say is, now steam will no longer allow me to giveback to this community by using my trading card income funds on other people. now when i have $5 in steam wallet solely from card sales, i can only spend it on myself, therefore it will be slower at leveling up for people that do the same thing as me. that also causes me to spend less $ on valve's storefront too because i'll be saving up those card funds rather then spending them on other people.