It'd be interesting if you'd give arguments for why you think it's not a solution.

> As a consequence, they too have become a half-repository, but at least one with a certain entry barrier.

eLife will still have an entry barrier, but passing that barrier doesn't give you access to publication, but to a positive rating in the assessment of the significance and rigour. In other words, it will still perform the function of highlighting potentially relevant research, but it doesn't block non-highlighted research from being accessible.

I think that’s only PLoS One.

My experiences with PLoS Biology and PLoS Computational Biology have been great, but very similar to other journals.

The same people who made PLoS are the ones reforming eLife. Exact same.