I'd say if no one can afford to, or knows how to replicate the thing you did. What point is there in it? And only because such an approach has downsides it's not clear it means the overall benefit of lessening the replication crisis and forcing scientists to provide enough information their work can be replicated at all would be a huge win. Based on people like https://www.youtube.com/@AppliedScience experience, 9 out of 10 times there is some crucial information missing in the papers they are trying to replicate.
Because sometimes they can afford to build on your prior results, and advance the state of the art. Factoring in all of the malfeasance, what's the trade off between not publishing due to inability/unwillingness to replicate, and publishing bad results? We should know this tradeoff before significantly changing the status quo.
