I agree. I just wanted to point it out that the possibility (that contracts assume no-reentrancy on low gas provided) exists
I guess Option 2 wasn’t fully clear to me. But let’s say we want to increase LOG or SLOAD to something very high. How does option 2 handle the case where a contract wants to check sender against a whitelist, and reject otherwise.
The oil/karma proposal seems IMO to give us a lot of freedom, since we suddenly gain an unobservable (so contract semantics cannot make decisions based on it) and global gas meter. Whereas this proposal removes/changes some of the rules regarding gas forwarding, but adds more special cases. I find this one a bit harder to reason about in a general sense.