So, most of this looks like outright FUD. UTXO set bloat for example doesnt seem more likely with CTV, we're getting it now with the ordinals.

The malicious wallet thing is real, but malicious wallets today usually result in a loss of funds. Is it really more insidious that they're stolen and locked into a CTV tree?

Guy says it might encourage more on-chain behavior, but multiple off-chain designs want to use CTV such as ARK and what I just call timeout trees, but is actually "Scaling Lightning with Simple Covenants" by John Law. This seems unconsidered in this analysis

"1. Taproot-based Conditional Structures: At the core of Taproot is the ability to commit to multiple spending conditions, but only reveal the one that gets executed. A user could create a CTV output that commits to a particular template, but that template could, in turn, be a Taproot transaction with multiple potential spending paths."

This though is interesting and I just dont know much about it...I dont know much about taproot at all it seems....