saw Andreas' new video and in that he brought up a point that I found very intriguing and got me to think in a new way. His idea is that "if there is a way to censor something then it should be censored according to the regulators". This was in context to covenants. If there is a way to whitelist or backlist to which addresses funds can be sent to i.e constricting the utxo to only allow (or disallow) certain addresses, then there will be regulatory pressure to do so. Right now we can say there is no way to whitelist addresses, but if there is, then it becomes a target for the regulators. Although, this is a very subtle point but worth considering. I personally thing that it's not really a big deal to allow such covenants. But having recursive covenants there is still space for things to go wrong. I believe more testing needs to be done before we get this out. Again Jeremy has been waiting a year, and he seems to be running out of patience, but hey you can wait another year or two, have a long time horizon, get more people onboard the idea and spread awareness - which I know are very hard to do. But maybe by taking this controversial decision of SpeedyTrial, he sort of got people talking. Is this is his secret marketing trick ;)?