Guy apparently you have not understood the topic. When you write “ordinals” and confuse it with “inscriptions”, then you are showing the need of move brainstorming on the issue.
“Ordinals” is, indeed, not a threat at all for the Bitcoin System; that is just an arbitrary numeration FIFO for issued UXTOs via coinbase transactions.
“Inscriptions” are insertion of arbitrary bits in the witness structure and consume storage. The thread is slowly (so slowly that a frog will not notice; maybe not even when it is too late). The thread is incrementing the operational and equipment cost for non-mining nodes. You can clearly imagine what could happen when the number of non-mining nodes around the globe is reduced. Can you imagine that, right?
I’m interested to know, which “solution” have you heard about and what are the chance/risk or benefit/cost you have assigned to those proposals.
nostr:npub1ywjjp4dup38veklgw44p2d24n9yze8e4u4gpxwm49ka6rjvyu9dsfg6ejf
Subjectively more or less 10 or 15 real Bitcoiners doing something and fighting everyday.
What probably would be needed, would be experience and understanding of the architectural, design, structure of the implemented actual code. Also high competency in informatics and related areas.
Functional code and built proposals, which people could easily run, would be more effective as providing people strings to read.
SegWit was not the only solution proposal for transaction malleability; remember BIP62 with Pieter Wuille’s proposed tweaks to the BIP in July 2014.
SegWit inadvertently prevented covert ASICBoost.
Incentives for UXTO consolidation could exist without SegWit discount; transaction byte size fee payment encourage already UXTO consolidation.
nostr:note1kasa9ad63wfg6zfwq7sjjfj48ul54gckatctshznrl5r948q7uesp00t2r
You may be right about this: 
nostr:note10mu27xlz58jchez5rkmug6nd3kwlyarcjq2jy883qe4qsysjryps26wsdf
nostr:note1h72rw579r3eyua2w9edyxwr6hg0s7hvm69txy9kfptul76mlrnfqwt9q67
nostr:note1vpahnwap0kpned9atntdwu2gentp64pnme64fjtf3ns2xuulr8lsn77nrm
nostr:note1d6evrehlgckv05vnwlgjygc2yzjvk9apljwtlqpwl3zs60q3fpfsvez588
So what? Mostly filled with dust.
“Inscriptions have no bearing on sat supply.”
Clearly you and your kind are wishing to inflate the sat supply:
https://ordiscan.com/inscription/357097
“Bitcoin full node operators implicitly agree on potential blockchain storage space growing at about 200GB annually.”
Previous node operators and new ones implicitly agreed on a new kind of transaction structure: Signature Segregation, nothing else.
“As to libraries storing content, Id welcome it. Such data would likely be an improvement over whats there now.”
Your kind do not need to put content and perform aggression on my storage for stream of bits which can be interpreted as wish and probably not found in other networks for some reason; like:
https://ordiscan.com/inscription/169689
https://ordiscan.com/inscription/169631
https://ordiscan.com/inscription/169739
https://ordiscan.com/inscription/169888
“people pay fees for blockspace, not for every node”
If that were true, then your are double aggressing my property, because you and your kind are not pay me fees for the blockspace which you and your kind are consuming (so far 11,8 GB).
People are paying compensation to mining operators for the loss of marginal competitiveness at block transmission due to additional transaction.
“I find it is essential to adapt to the changing world to survive and thrive.”
And that’s what every regular Bitcoin node operator is doing; it was never different; not even at genesis.
Shall the UXTO cap be free and let inflate the sat supply?
Shall the whole world library and digital media be stored (inscribed) in the SSDs of each regular Bitcoin nodes?
If you are really for those values named before, then you would agree, regular Bitcoin node operators have a legit right to self defense; since the ones of your kind are performing aggression; and aggression on my property and property of those who are providing resources without compensation.