I'm not tech savvy enough to make an opinion on the changes to OP_RETURN, but I do see a problem with the way these changes are being approached. Peter Todd's pull request was revived precisely after Citrea's whitepaper release which indicates a need for at least 144 bytes on OP_RETURN. [page 18
https://citrea.xyz/clementine_whitepaper.pdf] And Mr Todd himself mentioned Citrea as one of the reasons for the PR revival. So it's difficult to say anymore if the motivation for the changes came from Citrea or for the benefit of Bitcoin. And if it came from Citrea, why is a private company working on L2 tech putting its nose in base layer development?
Seems to me that in order to have an L2 of any form, you must '
put your nose in the base layer', informationally, development-wise, 'spiritually', etc. Since I have long considered L2's to be what will make Bitcoin itself viable, that doesn't offend me a lot.
From a user perspective, I intend to support L2s which are designed with the intent of being a net benefit for Bitcoin and dis-favor (if not attack) those which are not. I do not have an opinion of Citrea because I've not studied it.