I support 110 in principle, knowing that it's not going to make any difference in blockchain spam, because I think there needs to be some accountability for core pushing through a policy change to benefit one spammer corporation (Citrea). It's a one-year middle finger to core. The idea behind the game theory (not sure at all whether this will work) is that a soft fork can be adopted with a significant minority of nodes and miners because all nodes accept the soft fork by default (because, as a soft fork, it restricts consensus rules that all nodes already accept) and thereby puts miners into a position where they will lose their block rewards if other miners switch to the soft fork. Each miner has a choice, they can switch to the soft fork and always get their block rewards, or not switch and has some small probability that they won't. The safe choice is to switch as there is no cost to switching for most.