If you feel you have something unique, I think it has to be considered.

Two outcomes are possible:

• You protect your own ideas by being first and avoids that a reviewer sends you on a major revision while working himself
• Someone get the hint they need for a breakthrough

There has been discussion before on Research Gate and useful viewpoints are given in the link below:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_advantage_of_adding_research_papers_to_arxiv_before_publishing_in_a_journal_or_conference

If you feel you have something unique, I think it has to be considered.

Two outcomes are possible:

• You protect your own ideas by being first and avoids that a reviewer sends you on a major revision while working himself
• Someone get the hint they need for a breakthrough

There has been discussion before on Research Gate and useful viewpoints are given in the link below:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_advantage_of_adding_research_papers_to_arxiv_before_publishing_in_a_journal_or_conference

It is also the fastest way to share research and accelerate developments that depends on the sharing of new techniques/ideas/methods that otherwise will take longer time after passing (sometimes not) the peer review process.

The original reason behind the creation of ArXiv (the first one was bioRxiv) was to accelerate research by direct sharing of non-peer reviewed ideas because the process of review was very long in the bio sciences and made the pace of research to be very slow. Sharing pre-prints is somehow better, you have kept a sort of ownership of your ideas.

People who don't have access to paid academic journals can read papers on arXiv. Being read and earlier citation, being discussed in the general press, being able to claim precedence in case of competing research on hot topics.