I don't get it. You say: """Are there good reasons to store arbitrary data on #Bitcoin?" Absolutely. L2s and scalability solutions depend on on-chain proofs.""" But you also say: """You know why “spam” increased so much? Because most people stopped using #Bitcoin on-chain. Today it’s all custodians: Strike, Wallet of Satoshi, Liquid… Less usage = more free space = more arbitrary data on the timechain."""" So... The villain, in terms of increased SPAM, is the use of L2s, since it decreases competition for the registration of transactions and consequently decreases fees. However, your argument is that data registration is required because L2s rely on on-chain proofs. In short, we should avoid or at least use less L2s to raise fees, which would protect timechain from spam. However, at the same time, the OP Return field should not be limited in order to not serve as an obstacle to the creation and evolution of these L2s, whose use we have just concluded is not "healthy" for timechain. So the increase in OP Return does not generate spam, it only creates a good scenario for L2s which the more we use, the more Spam we get. Is that really the argument?