the core fallacy of your position is that taproot is useful at all. your argument is a classic fallacy of begging the question. your argument frames it as though not keeping taproot is "ossification" but then you say that you want bitcoin as money, so you actually are supporting ossification, but you haven't got the balls to stand on that position. wishy washy. bitcoin doesn't need anything to make it more useful than schnorr signatures. we have musig 2, and we could have plain schnorr pubkey hash addresses and schnorr signatures. the claims that taproot helps lightning are false. there isn't enough lightning channels even if channel opening rates 10x from current to need any of the "benefits" of spam enabling taproot. p2spkh and musig2 are all that lightning needs at this point. that whole thing about "bitcoin block size is not enough for everyone to have a lightning channel" is nonsense. firstly, not everyone needs one, small scale aggregation like breez and eclair with LSPs gives you always-on without the burden of personally managing your lightning. even semi centralised lightning wallets like WoS are still better than nothing, and their app is mature, their infrastructure is reliable. every argument in favor of taproot for lightning benefit doesn't match with reality.

Taproot's a Band-Aid, courtesy of Blockstream's Andrew Poelstra, delaying real scaling solutions to maintain the status quo.