Are there too many soft fork ideas out there?

Right now, there are between 7 and 12 proposals for covenant soft forks in Bitcoin. You can check most of them out on the Covenants Support Wiki or the covenants.info site. Here's a quick list: - BIP 119 CTV - BIP 346 OP_TXHASH - BIP 347 OP_CAT - BIP 348 CHECKSIGFROMSTACK - BIP 440, 441 (The Great Script Restoration) - BIP 442 OP_PAIRCOMMIT - BIP 443 OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY - BIP 446 OP_TEMPLATEHASH - BIP 448 Rebindable Transactions I’m sure I missed a few. There are also different combos of these, like LNHANCE, which is currently in its signaling phase. Plus, there are BIP 54 (Great Consensus Cleanup) and BIP 110 (Reduce Data Temporary Soft Fork). And then we’ve got those quantum proposals; BIP 360 might be the only one with an actual number. I can see more proposals popping up soon. I’m not in a hurry for Bitcoin to change, but I’m really curious about these covenant soft fork proposals. It’s frustrating that filterers and treasury firms seem to have drowned out much of the discussion. I try to keep up and learn about these options, but it’s honestly a lot to take in. I wish I could pinpoint a couple of proposals that I could confidently support. I was browsing Stacker News today and saw a question: When does avoiding a soft fork become riskier than going ahead with one? The chatter there mostly pointed out how tough it is for people to wrap their heads around the trade-offs of the various proposals. Yeah, Bitcoin’s all about being permissionless, so let’s see where all these soft fork ideas go.