The only reason I'm on the fence is because I'm not seeing anything in particular being out of line besides 5 pokemon names. All I hear are the same 5 abusers (gyarados, hawlucha, excadrill, ditto, and darma), and despite the argument of "the next abuser enters the fray", I'm not seeing any particular pokemon being mentioned as the next abuser or being broken enough to be uncounterable (lets say hydreigon is brought up as a replacement sweeper to gyarados, how broken exactly would it be? Are there no revenge killers?). Every new generation we're going to see some names pop up as concerns as we gut them out of the meta, and I think these 5 are no exceptions to that consideration especially with the new mechanics. If I'm supposed to be convinced of the mechanic being the problem and not the individuals in fear of more stuff becoming broken, I need more than just "it will happen trust" to fully understand what theorectically will happen. I'm open minded on the subject, don't get me wrong, I'm just still waiting for that convincing list of what will for sure happen in the future from both sides to compare which is better, and I feel thats what most of the pro-dyna posters are looking for too. I'd be leaning more pro-ban if I felt it wouldn't be a hasty decision without evaluating the future of pro/anti sides.
At the end of the day, this is why IMO we need either two ladders or a proper reqs based suspect test (as opposed to quick ban or council vote).
From what I'm understanding, our philosophy is we shouldn't be afraid to remove mons fearing a "slippery slope". This was one of the biggest pro-aegislash arguments back in XY where we didn't want to ban aegislash due to potentially opening the floodgates of megas such as medicham, mawile, pinsir, alakazam, garde, and scizor, and that philosophy shutdown that theory as a proper reasoning for keeping it, among other things. What contradicts that philosophy is if we're afraid to "remove pokemon" in fear of "the next pokemon takes its place", to get rid of a mechanic that could be fine if the majority of users of it aren't the problem. Just like how all the listed megas turned out to be balanced in OU bar mawile with aegislash gone, without gyarados, hawlucha, darmanitan who probs will be suspect tested regardless, and ditto, what exactly are we concerned about "being the runner up OU destroyers" and will dynamax still be cancerous enough to ruin the meta without said threats.
I'm open for a suspect of dynamax, but the priorities on what gets suspect tested first can heavily impact what the future for gen 8 competitive holds. We could have a future where certain mons are gutted, like XY deoxys, aegislash, and mawile and there's still an even 50/50 chance of equal skilled players with reasonable compositions to win matches, or we could outright ban the mechanic and keep a stale meta where we're still picking off individual mons that don't fall to the power creep of dynamax (toxapex, aegislash, ferrothorn, still darman probably, dracovich, etc etc.). Hell I'm pro-ban on dynamax in national OU just because there is indeed a clown world of dynamax abusers in the national format, but galar-ou I'm still on the fence and mostly not seeing many justifications to quick ban/council vote beyond the occasional bullshittery.