Sure.
1- It will ban BitVM, a legitimate Bitcoin project and promising scaling avenue. According to bip110.org: "The 257-byte control block limit constrains large Taptrees. Advanced smart contracts like BitVM may need to wait until expiry or use testnet/sidechains." However, they also claim that they want to "All known monetary use cases remain fully functional and unaffected.", which is obviously deceptive.
2- It will prevent running other soft forks. They claim it's not an issue since it's "temporary" and "the process takes more than a year anyway", though there are convenants proposals that are following this process already and are needed to make Ark, another promising scaling solution, fully functional. I think there's a theme here.
3- They say it's temporary and only a year, just to see how it goes... However, either it's a good solution - then why temporary? Either it's a poorly-engineer/understood solution, or at least not something people would want as a permanent thing - then it should pass at all. We all now what "temporary means" in this "emergency contextes". The rhetoric itself is problematic, pushing temporary changes to an immutable ledge is as well, obviously.
4- They want to force-through, just like Core v30 did, in an escalation of bad engineering and poorly thought arguments. This *is* an attack in bitcoin.
