Firstly, there is an argument that the lack of use of a technology due to it not being activated does not serve as a valid criticism. The focus should instead be directed towards the benefits and implications once the technology is in use. In particular, the method of activation, such as Bip8, is considered an unrelated topic to the actual functionalities provided by these technologies.

Covenants have emerged as a significant advancement offering trustless UTXO sharing, which is crucial for creating vaults—a mechanism that enhances security by requiring multiple keys to authorize a transaction or access funds. The documented use cases for covenants are extensive, with practical examples and experiments already running on signet, a test network for Bitcoin. A comprehensive list of such use cases can be found at utxos.org, which offers insights into the practical applications of these technologies.

It is further pointed out that discussions should avoid considering rare or extreme scenarios that do not relate to the documented benefits of CheckTemplateVerify (CTV). The argument extends to note that existing solutions like multisig setups could also potentially allow entities, such as governments, to interfere with or inadvertently compromise destination addresses, similar to how covenants might operate.

Another critical consideration is the standard by which new technologies are evaluated for inclusion in Bitcoin's protocol. The criteria should not solely be whether the technology is the "best tool for the job," but rather if it is "safe for all" and "useful for some." This standard aligns with the historical approach to integrating new opcodes or technologies into the Bitcoin network. Hence, the primary question that remains is whether there are any substantive objections to the safety of CTV, given that its utility has already been demonstrated for certain use cases.