My "pet" fork , which would be a hard fork, haha, would be to tighten monetary policy (I.e. reduce block reward) in order to induce price hyperbitcoinization and pre-empt a long grinding economic war between the USD zone and the rest :)

Rubin may have a good proposal, I can't speak to the technical details but he claims it doesn't allow recursive covenants. The issue is, he went about it very poorly, he basically just asked one day "OK, so I'm gonna launch a UASF because I don't see any disagreements". Then, because everyone told him no he got mad and said "bitcoins ossified and we can't do anything!" He comes across as very narcissistic, and that's fine to a degree, people that smart are probably not the best people-persons, but he has to learn patience, let these ideas rattle around for a while and the best covenant proposal will win. We aren't making any progress by turning this into a game of political football.

I think covenants will unlock quite a bit of potential for us, and you can see a lot of the inflooencers starting to be more amenable to it even though they started as "fuck this I'm voting with my node". Bitcoin is not ossified, we literally just got full RBF and it looks like its picking up adoption, and its possibly going faster than existing service providers can adapt to, in fact there are services that simply will not be able to provide the same functionality because of it ie. 0conf layer 1 to layer 2 swaps. Completely lost in these discussions seem to be in what exactly the new transaction type would entail, and a game theoretic analysis of whether the " miners become custodians" argument is valid, and I'd love to have those discussions and learn for myself.