hey hey, thanks for your time and suggestions. I will be honest, i am not a fan of metaprotocols. that been said, all your arguments here make sense. For risk mitigation and market driven adoption I would probably counter argument by saying that Starknet for example, which is an L2 built using the STARK proofs scheme I am proposing here for instance, has been running in production for years, and the proving system used by it has processed nearly 1 billion transactions, secured over $1 trillion of cumulative volume etc. Yes it’s not on Bitcoin but would be the same for a meta protocol technically. In fact, factually speaking, a meta protocol would be infinitely less secure than Starknet today. Again, the arguments are valid and make sense. But just wanted to give a contrasted perspective on the matter given the history of this specific tech in practice, not on paper.