tbh I think you missed the points of my previous message.
It refers to statefulness of Bitcoin script that can be achieved obviously through metaprotocol indexing without the need to constraint utxos at the main layer.
Globally I think OP_CAT can be very dangerous for Bitcoin as long as it allows recursive covenants.
A definition of covenant give by @petertodd is: “covenants are mechanisms by which the way a txout can be spent is is restricted in advance, such that the form of transactions used to spend that txout are pre-defined or otherwise restricted in a way that is not purely limited to signatures.”
In other words it allows stateful computation over UTXOs with transitioning mechanisms allowed by Bitcoin script operation. I don’t see why do you want to talk about SCs as with a loose definition.
Happy to know you have $1T of value over Starknet and so, why do you want to come on Bitcoin instead of staying on your own layer?
I really feel there is a marketing campaign over delvingbitcoin for OP_CAT but I don’t think it’ll help to reach a dev consensus over this operation. OP_CTV seems way more dangerous and assume to enable already a lot of new use cases where to be honest validate a stark proof on Bitcoin doesn’t seem enough to take such risk of recursive covenants.
Gl with your products. Hope you’ll make money