I am mostly worried that the risks for the network effects due to a potential chain split could far outweight the marginal benefits provided by BIP110. As I said I don't mind the signaling, but not at the cost of damaging the network effect. I would have been much more comfortable to signal if it had not been of the UASF. I would be fine with BIP110 activating with 90% support or failing with 5% support, but I would not like it if it activated with low but significant support.

I don't like spam, but my understanding is that BIP110 does not significantly increase the cost of spam (sub 1% for ordinals). I don't mind the signaling aspect of BIP110 as a way to protest Core, but at this point it seems Core lost any legitimacy and new clients will mostly take over.

I don't have a strong view for or against BIP110, but I don't understand this type of statement and I am somewhat worried about the activation mechanism chosen through the UASF. If most the nodes weighted by economic relevance and most of the hash power did not signal for BIP110, how could this constitute a contentious hardfork attempt, and why would it be abnormal for BIP110 to fail in this situation?