I think blocks that are too small and blocks that are too big do the same thing, create centralization. when blocks are way too small, not everyone can own their own UTXOs or open their own channels or whatever. they get stuck using custodial apps like strike unless they are rich. when blocks are way too big, it gets very hard to run a full node and check the network, and you are lucky to have maybe a couple thousand people who bother to run nodes on enterprise grade hardware. that's not great either.

I don't think that making blocks a little bit bigger is particularly dangerous compared to the dangers of letting custodians control everyone's money. it's really a case of the lesser of two evils. but I do think that there could be some way out there to increase the number of concurrent self-custodial users without necessarily doing a blocksize increase. it might look like ark or it might look like ZK rollups. in any case, you ain't getting scalable self-custody on bitcoin without changing the consensus rules somehow. and if you don't do it, the whole thing will get taken over by banks and you lose the qualities of bitcoin that make it special. you have to do something. not doing anything is the wrong answer.