This is an “it depends” question. I’ve gone full minimalist but have a unilateral pronation issue that has led me to reconsider the nuances of minimalist footwear much more. Footwear decisions should be individualized. I think a wide toe box is a must (regardless of choice) bc there really shouldn’t be any reason to desire crushing your toes (over time) to the point that you develop bunions. From there you have to determine whether you have limitations that might make zero drop or zero support limiting. For example, if someone had major limitations in dorsiflexion going straight zero drop may not be wise unless they have a transition plan. There are brands that aren’t minimalist but offer a more natural foot shape (eg Topo, Altra) but at the same time may have some variation on the amount of cushioning. At one time I used the ACICS Kayano. Perfect to help me introduce stability to my unilateral issue but doesn’t do any favor for developing functional feet bc of the cushion, the heel to toe drop, and the non-wide toe box. That said, someone with the right combo of factors may find that something like that is best for their feet and their body. One other reason that I don’t like heal to toe drop is that the slope forces the spine into a little bit of extension moment and this seemed to be somewhat of an exacerbating factor for my back. So, I benefited from transition to less support and zero drop for one reason but uncovered an limitation in another place with transition to absolute minimalist. Basically, a law of unintended consequences. So, I think all shoes should really push toward wider toe box (but probably not for everyone) and the other factors will have to be made on individual biomechanics. Plus, if hip, ankle, or knee pain occur soon or even months after the choice you’ll have to decide if the footwear choice has uncovered a mechanical limitation that may actually argue against that footwear choice. Too many things to consider which drives me bonkers.