BayAreaCoins you seem to have the idea that bitcoin developers are a free shitcoin development business for you.  They are not.  Testnet is for testing, v4 was created because v3 got traded for money, v3 got created (and was left intentionally defective) because v2 got traded for money, etc.  If third party usage of testnet gets in the way of the uses its authors created it for, they will continue to just switch to different rules at their own convenience.  You just don't get any say in the subject, it's not up for debate, and you've certainly been well informed of this all along by many people.  For testnet there isn't even a sense that the system was created for the benefit of others, it's not, it's just a test, and it is intended to have no more value that monopoly money.  Of course, you're free to make whatever shitcoins you want including derivatives of the Bitcoin software-- the bitcoin devs are kind enough to give away the software under terms that allow you to do so, something under which they are under absolutely no obligation to do so, and might be wise to reconsider if they're not treated with professionalism and kindness.

Likewise, there was nothing about my suggestion actually "paying devs".  The reason testnet should probably be massively premined is to assure developers always have ready access to coins and to completely undermine the economics of any attempt to use it as money because that usage has consistently gotten in the way of using it for testing -- in other words to assure that it remains worthless as it is and has always been intended by its creators.  Your aggressively negative response is probably the best evidence that the proposal would be effective and that prior proposals would not that anyone could possibly have wanted.  --- not that anyone specifically has the goal of pissing you off, but you've been insistent on creating and driving usage that is at odds with the creators intention for testnet and changes that make it less useful for your purposes make it more useful for the authors purposes.

As far as your question, I'm not aware of any bitcoin core contributor that has any financial interest in citrea and I asked around a bit-- but also it's kind of a dumb question because this change should be of no meaningful financial benefit to citrea: They're already stuffing their data in fake outputs. Assuming there is ever a meaningful amount of that particular traffic (which itself is a big assumption) the benefit would be to all future users of bitcoin in reducing the amount of unprunable utxo bloat.  It's also a dumb question in that the whole premise of Bitcoin is that people adopt it for their own interests, the gauge under which it should be judged is does it help or harm others.  Lets imagine it were amazingly helpful for them (though I don't see how), so what?  If anything that would be a point in its favor.  It would be another issue if it were the only reason to do it, but as I mentioned up thread I commented in support of this proposal without any idea what citrea was, I don't consider it particularly relevant except as a concrete example of one thing that currently uses fake outputs that would probably switch.