It is nuanced and I think you were correct.

1. Citrea is a shitcoin technology that needs to store data on Bitcoin

2. Compromised Core devs bent the knee to shitcoin Citrea

Yes, Citrea first played by the rules of puting 80 Bytes in OP_RETURN and the rest 64 Bytes in "two unspendable Taproot outputs to include the other 64 bytes of data" (see Antoine's blog) thus polluting the UTXO.

But the question is why do we allow shitcoiners to abuse Bitcoin with data? Why bent the knee to spammers and even destroy the filter of 83 Bytes OP_RETURN and allow the consensus limit of 100 000 Bytes? Bitcoin is Freedom Money. Not a jpeg dump.

BIP110 shows us that we can reduce spam data on consensus level thus reducing any abuse of Bitcoin Monetary Network.

And The Cat shows us that there are ways to fight UTXO bloat.

So shitcoiners, spammers and Citrea in particular can be stopped abusing and polluting Bitcoin.c

The logical question is why aren't they creating their tech to comply with Bitcoin rules? For example to store less than 80 Byets of data?

Also why did the Core devs rejected Luke's fix of inscriptions spam? Because inscriptions are a hack, an exploit of the protocol.

And its obvious that majority of Core has been compromised whethere by shitcoin VCs, woke mind virus, Citrea, peer influence or other factors.