I strongly encourage you not to trust anything on arXiv (unless it has a gazillion citations).
I had the chance, many times, to (officially) review papers that I "noticed" beforehand on arXiv.
As someone else mentioned "at first glance they looked OK". Then, after reading into them, I started to notice a lot of issues. And I'm not talking about small inconsistencies; I am talking about significant problems that completely invalidated the papers' main claims.
Just to give you two examples.
A paper once stated in the abstract "Our method is superior than the state of the art method X by y%". Then, after reaching the experimental section, I discovered that the authors used a completely different setup than what was used to evaluate the original method X.
Another time the abstract stated "our attack breaks the state of the art technique X". Then, later, the authors wrote "we did not implement X as it should be done".
Any reviewer would spot such issues right away and reject these papers even in low-tier journals because they are flawed.
Note that I'm not saying that any arXiv publication is trash. There may very well be (actually, there is) good source material on arXiv. However, while you can take any peer-reviewed publication (almost) at face value, when it comes to arXiv you need to thoroughly question its validity first - and use not just a grain, but an entire bag of salt.
My bottom line: "publishing" on arXiv is not devoid of meaning, but the scientific value of arXiv papers is either negligible, null, or negative. I would take a low-tier journal paper over an arXiv publication any day, if given the choice.