> Does it take away from the monetary usecase of the protocol though? Yes. Allowing data of 100KB in OP_RETURN is a new _officially sanctioned usecase as data storage_. This data may or may not be used on second layers. Most likely it will be used for abuse of nodes. And people that are economically illiterate can’t seem to understand that adding a usecase to a monetary commodity is detrimental for its monetary premium (case in point: silver. It has more industrial use than gold, but lower monetary premium. After silver got demonetised when the bi-metal standard crumbled, it plummeted against gold).

What makes it financial data as opposed to data storage? Interpretation. You call it data storage because you don't like the tech stack being built on top of it. I call it financial data because I see the use case and I embrace it. At the end of the day it's all zeros and ones. Data it still is. What you're calling "data storage" is simply more financial data but in a different format. You just don't like that it's not a standard bitcoin transaction, even though such transactions follow all consensus rules just fine. Permissionless, remember? Anyone can use the network. They don't require anyone's blessings to do so. As long as they follow the consensus rules. Which those transactions you don't like do. Free markets, remember? DeFi has immense adoption, why do you think that is? Are you smarter and more enlightened than the free market? And now bringing this to Bitcoin has - outside of maxi circles - pretty strong promise and interest - so again, do you know better than the market? It's only free markets until you disagree with the outcome? Censorship resistant, remember? And yet there are the detractors coming up with new and inventive ways to censor the things they don't like.