Sure tho I consider based apps a natural extension and usage of (what you called pure) covenants: if you impl covenants seriously rather than thru op_cat workarounds, you unlock their programmability potential by extending the txn commitment scheme to allow the covenants to govern based logic. This extension is straightforward, requires no research / theoretical novelty, and is highly useful even if it's the end form of programmability on the layer (ie no further syncompo/vprogs solutions ever develop).
---
@KaspaSilver There's nothing wrong with implementing an EVM L2 as an interim solution, but this requires an interim agenda. If in contrast a project aims to become the main gateway for builders on our money network, then our hard-fought efforts - and the prices we paid - for decentralized fairlaunch go to waste. Such a takeover is far from inevitable, and fwiw I know of no other crypto project that had to cope with independent L2 attempts that early in its growth efforts (to be clear I never attribute to malice that!).
To spell it out further: If an L2 has an interim agenda, or at least focuses on its own bizdev rather than general builder devrel -- ie, it uses L2 tech as a <business> enabler rather than as an <infra> value prop -- then the risk of fragmentation is restricted to liquidity and standards, which is tolerable and solvable down the road. I wouldnt endorse it but I would get it, and I'd respect those who dont give an f about my endorsement