I agree in concept but in practice there won’t be any good options for 29" wheels in the near future much like there aren’t options for 26" wheels now.
Maybe this is me… but in my experience the bike that feels fast is fast.
I know people say weight doesn’t matter. And maybe with the “maths” it doesn’t but two guys I know weight weenied a build specifically for Sea Otter and by far outperformed what they were doing all season. Maybe they peaked well, maybe it was new bike energy… but I am with you, feeling fast is fun!
If the 32" inch monster is found to be an unfair advantage by the powers to be I can see it becoming its own class at the local level. Similar to the BMX cruiser class or more recently the e-bike class.
I’m looking forward to the 29" sales as companies clear out for the 32’s. I’m building a Chiner 29 right now. Seems some parts are on sale. 
It sounds like you have a dialed in perception of what is fast, but I think some people incorrectly equate frantic and out of control as fast (ie - on the edge, not a comfortable speed). If I’m descending on my gravel bike with 45’s at high speeds on terrain better suited for a MTB, that is going to feel slow to me even though if feels “too fast” and frantic. Some might interpret that situation as faster than riding on a smoother more capable bike, but the “feeling” is misleading them.
I’m a big believer in the “slow is smooth, smooth is fast” mantra. It’s when you get in that flow state where everything slows down and you are in the rhythm/groove. That smoothness feels like speed to me and is where things really get fun. And it’s not just off-road handling, but even in a TT where the world goes into slow motion and the effort is smooth, deliberate, and powerful. Or in a criterium where you are anticipating every surge and gap before they happen, everything happening smoothly in slow motion.
Yes - this. Every sport has its genetic limitations for people, and cycling is no different. Even with 32’s, there are courses where a 5’6 135lb rider on 29’s is going to be at an advantage over a 6’3 190lb rider on 32’s.
This is why I (selfishly) feel like 32’s are awesome. Im 6’3 and 240 lbs (15% body fat). I have a ~400w FTP but my w/kg is only 3.75, so the advantages of running 32" feels like it helps even the playing field for the clydesdale class folks a little bit because I get extra-dropped on every climb 
below is the Nova setup with my exact tour-divide kit from last year, this platform is a DREAM for long haul bikepacking races/dirt touring.
They certainly would not want to give an advantage to tall riders. I mean, the pro field is just littered with big guys as it is. Oh…wait…
Joe
If the uci bans 32” wheels, it will be because some old dudes think it looks weird and/or goes against tradition. But yeah, they will spin it as a safety thing or about keeping things fair. Probably more likely to be banned for gravel and road rather than mtb (which isn’t as hung up on tradition and style).
What joe said. Its a hot take, but (Matt Beers aside) its usually small people with big power that win races, not as often is it big people with big power. So the 32"er thing is just making it more fair 
Slow is smooth, smooth is boring. 
32" wheels + 32cm bars FTW!
Joe
Maybe less of an issue for “the guys”. But in my view a bigger issue in the women’s field.
The geometry will also be challenging as suspension travel increases. I can see 32er eventually becoming the platform of choice for short travel XC race bikes (and gravel bikes).
For longer travel down country bikes, trail, enduro, etc. I’d guess we’ll see 32er only for taller riders. Or maybe mullet builds.
One interesting note - on a 32er bike, the front triangle will be smaller to preserve the overall dimensions to fit the rider (more space taken up by wheels) - meaning less space for bottles. Could be that it won’t be possible to fit 2 bottles in a 32er frame.
At what point will Dylan Johnson’s tires be wider than his bars? Lol.
I’m wondering if 32" gravel bikes are going to be able to gain enough momentum to get a proper length fork. The bikes currently shown using repurposed MTB forks have the stack at least 100mm too high.
I get this specific example is a special case being suspension corrected for 80mm fork, but people are already constructing their perceptions off faulty information as every other 32" gravel bike uses an overly long fork. Imagine the Small Fargo with a proper ~440mm ATC fork and it’s going to be much more normal - stack drops to ~550mm and many other changes keep the bike relatively “normal” and legible to regular gravel riders.
Ben Delaney on a short test ride at Sea Otter…
Some “interesting” stack and reach numbers.
There’s no way you’re getting to 550 stack with that much BB drop, even with a 440 fork. Maybe 590. Fork availability is certainly an interesting question. I think there are some 27.5+ rigid forks that are around 440.
I’m speaking to Waltly currently about the possibility of a 32" Ti gravel bike. I think that might be the way to go for now, hopefully they will also make a fork in the right dimensions.
Some comments on 32" wheels from top downhillers: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/32-wheel-skepticism-and-new-race-tracks-world-cup-downhills-fastest-pros-on-the-2026-opener.html
Obviously different goals vs xc and gravel but I think it’s interesting that tahnee, who is 5 foot 6.5 inches, says she struggled to adapt to 29. And Jackson goldstone (if you don’t follow downhill - reigning world champ) thinks he’s too short at 5-7 for 32 inch wheels.