> Technical debt isn't a measure of weight of transactions.

Sorry, my original sentence was a little unclear. I meant to say that the notion that CTV is just a subpar waypoint en route to a more general covenant system may not be accurate if it is a more efficient way (in terms of chainstate/weight) to express highly useful patterns like vaults. In that case, characterizing CTV as technical debt wouldn't be right.

> Our only option here is to be mindful of the long term implications of the design choices we are making today.

Your points are well taken - I don't think anyone is arguing against thinking hard about consensus changes. But I have yet to see a proposal for covenants that is as efficient on-chain and easy to reason about as CTV is.

I also think there's some value in "legging into" covenants by deploying a simple, non-recursive construction like CTV that services some very important uses, and then taking as much time as necessary to think about how to solve more existential problems, like UTXO scalability, that likely require a recursive covenant construction.

There doesn't have to be mutual exclusion in the approaches, especially when the maintenance burden of CTV seems to be so low. If we end up deploying something that requires a wider variety of in-script hashing, it seems likely that CTV's hash will be able to "free ride" on whatever more general sighash cache structure we come up with.