So instead of having a small opening to misuse you expect opening it up completely removes the problem? Like removing speed limits on roads? It's a flawed statement. One used over and over without solving anything. That plus Lopp openly saying that the reason is "a use case by Citrea": to be able to broadcast and instantly verify information/data without waiting for it to be included in a block. If the miner centralisation is the/an issue that people actually want to solve, then support things like small miner projects. Bring back the original idea by Satoshi, one miner in every home. That would be a place to start. Remove the incentive to pool everything together like in most centralised blockchains controlled by one or a few large entities. Work on making bitcoin what it was actually created to be: an alternative to the flawed legacy system. Money for the people not the banks.

You have misunderstood what problem is being solved.

No. I've heard, read and watched arguments from both sides and from the people writing the code changes and I see the many new problems being introduced by these change not the useful benefits. What is the use case for the complete removal of the op_return limit? And don't use arguments that Ethereum can't already do.