While “removing all the account-binding nonsense” may appear more accessible, that would no longer be the same EIP, idea, or surrounding considerations.
Consensual minting is functionally just a nuanced implementation of any token standard, 20, 721, 1155. It is not something that needs to be solved with an EIP that removes all ability to use the existing and properly standardized tokens. The ability to standardize the process without significant feature loss is possible.
To that, the idea of genuinely consensual minting is only possible through account abstraction (using contracts to block unexpected mints) or having the minter opt-in. Today, the EIPs of 20, 721, and 1155 are already designed for consensual minting. It is just opt-in, which the proposed EIP would also be.
If the situation is entirely reliant on the minters opting in, I would expect it to be a token-type extension rather than an entirely new one. Further, extensions have not historically been designed for use cases but rather essential functionality that individuals can build on, given their own opinion and use cases. This EIP and proposed actions carry a large amount of opinion and use-case specification. I would appreciate an EIP that provides new functionality (an extension) without being so limited as the current and future (consensual minting) currently stand.
As referenced in your previous comment here,
EIP-4494 which is serving a similar vertical, is an Extension, which at most, this EIP would and should become given the complete removal of “account-bound” functionality.
With this, though, I would not favor EIP-5484 either as no above-mentioned proposal solves the problem without massive and broad-reaching implications and assumptions.
To the relevant conversation here, EIP-5192 is much better defined however still riddled with issues and misalignment in the way standards are written. Prefer to see further clarity before supporting anything or seeing another half-built EIP that drowns in nuance.