What covenants allow is an increased attack surface and the potential for unintended consequences. Segwit and Taproot helped produce the spam that's currently attacking the network. Bitcoin is working perfectly fine without new opcodes. It's feature complete. Leave it alone.

I still don’t understand how covenants improve the situation for low value amounts. If I have $10 in my own UTXO or $10 in a shared UTXO, it will still cost me roughly the same amount in fees to transfer it on the L1 chain. Why does having more keys per UTXO make anything cheaper if it costs you the same amount in transaction fees? It doesn’t seem to matter if the covenant encodes a future payment to you if the payment amount is small and fees are high and rising over time. You’re still going to pay a significant amount in fees. I don’t agree that block space is practically unbounded. Sure we could increase it, but it’s like making more roads to decrease traffic. It just encourages more people to buy cars and fill the roads. Building more roads gives a temporary benefit but eventually the traffic is back to the original level or even worse. If we lower the economic cost of blockspace, people will just fill it with lower value data (like spam JPEGs) and we’ll reduce decentralization.

"Segwit and Taproot helped produce the spam that's currently attacking the network." This is simply wrong. Segwit increased block size, so you could pack 4MB instead of 1MB into blocks. This worst-case was well understood. And indeed, most nodes didn't notice (block relay is not the majority bandwidth for default nodes). Without segwit, the spam would have driven up fees much more: they were clearly prepared to spend the money!