If someone doesn't have 10 Cents, i guess they have way more serious problems than free games
and everyone seems to cut my argument, that i myself live below the poverty line and managed to get to level 5 in 3 months

Okay, try to compare this community with the real world, a healthy community can only support a limited amount of weak/poor people and this community is the absolute opposite and i think most people could change this easily, but instead i always hear the same excuses over and over again and emotional arguing in pro of level zeros

So you say, because i took my chance to speak freely, i have to deal with being harassed by people, who don't share the same opinion?
I don't see me being rude, but trying to get me silenced could really be considered rude, you didn't liked my fact-based arguing, eh?

"I'd rather gift something to a person who maybe can't afford to buy it themselves, than to give something to someone who already spent a crap ton of money on games and could probably just buy it, if they really wanted to own the game."

Sorry, for the additional reply, but this a lot of black/white mindset, how can you tell a level 0 can't afford any games and a let's say level 5 has so much money, that he could easily buy games themselves

I don't think that a answer on a post is the problem.
It is that wiksolop72 write a message as answer that is in the end not for Prosac and instead for the OP.

I get why that is annoying because wik done the same, 2x, when i wrote something (from me is the basic infos of the text above, prosac changed my text to his liking -so maybe 60% of the first text are from me-).
It's a unneccessary notification.

Besides that, each one can afford a few cents, after he have a PC, a steam account with, at leastm a worth of $100, elect., a room/flat/house, food etc..
The most level 0 accounts aren't new ones, they are level 0 since years. I speak in this case only from the active ones that enter GAs.
Make by yourself the text to check all entries of a random level 0 GA and you get what i mean.

If the autojoiners with their activated thanks script in the comments, of each public low level GA, aren't enough evidences.

The data you're quoting was obtained by sampling a small set of active accounts. Which means it cannot be accurately scaled up with a number that includes inactive users.

Then take this 40% for the active users. Because you are partly correct, of course were all the tests of with entries, made with active users that entered dif. GAs over the timeframe of 2 years. A part were active and are inactive now but if that change then the % to 38% or 42% in the end isn't important.
Does anything from this make the percentage or numbers better ?
Not really because the inactive accounts will, most likely, nearly never get checked from someone on unactivated wins and the active ones with the 40% marks on sgtools will be still the problem.

How much less? What's the %? You just got done telling me not to stick to the %, but then immediately tried to use a blank % as a basis for your conclusion.

Here the % don't interest in the end too. The big picture will not be changed from the exact %.
But feel free to do checks of all your winners of your GAs. Divided in levels and % calculated separately for each of them.
Best taken over the timeframe of a year or at least a few months and min. from 5 - 10 public GAs.
I am interested in the exact numbers and %.

The 40% above got collected from different GAs of different users that done all their own tests. I am one of them and i seen all of the tests and results.
If you want names.... as example Bron99 and KappaKing. You can look for their accounts, check their public GAs, check all entries with sgtools and calculate from that the % by your own.
So you don't need to believe blindly in my numbers... you can check all by your own, the one or other way.
[As a warning, it will take "a bit" more time as to write a few sentences...]