That's an interesting idea, but it may result in a fair amount of disappointment and maybe even grudges, because if people are nominated for a game but that doesn't result in it being reserved for them, everyone else sees that those games are likely to be gone very soon, so if anyone who sees that has any interest in one and isn't particularly keen to defer to the nominee, they'll likely jump on it even if they were only barely considering it before, leaving the nominee with nothing by the time they'll see the message. So if a nomination will essentially become a notification that a wishlisted game is available, shouldn't the nominator try to do that first (assuming chat is public - otherwise you won't normally be able to do it either)?

So how about something like:
- Nominations are always free and even encouraged for daggered and, even more so, expiring games.
- You get to decide if and when nomination drives for some or all other games are open and on what terms. If the list gets large and sustainably replenished I guess, if there are multiples of non-daggered games, or whatever.
- Outside said nomination drives, there's a limit to how many nominations one can make. Remains to discuss what that is, whether daggered/expiring only in first week as was suggested, or first couple of days at least, if (also, past that) 3 / day or even 1 / day for non-daggered/expiring, and/or not allowing nominations for a game within a day or two of it being added, whatever.
- You may also get to decide whether certain games are under more nomination restrictions. Like, say, new or expensive games not allowed to go in nominations right after being added if the rule isn't adopted in general, or such a game taking up all of a person's nomination "allowance" for a day or a week or whatever if made.

Yeah, I tend to make things complicated, and this isn't what this is about. Should be something for people to feel nice giving and receiving, and also nominating. But when the supply has changed (and community has, because GOG has... don't get me started, didn't even post in their end of 2017 thread, didn't even look there, (didn't post in that one with the invited forum members either for that matter, didn't even finish reading it, got fed up of forum members defending them, or at least accepting the situation even more openly) would just chew them all up again over the same old)...
Meh. Shouldn't have said anything probably.