I'm writing up a paper on a new protocol. The approach is different from previous attempts to solve the same problem, and this makes me want to write up the simplest version possible to elucidate the idea. However, there's like a half-dozen places that jump out as either optimizable or generalizable with recently published techniques. On one end of the spectrum, I'm worried about a simple description being underperformant (beyond missing what folks might call "standard engineering optimizations") and a quick follow up with the obvious generalizations diminishing (dare I say scooping) the prestige. On the other end of the spectrum, I'm just worried I'll never publish it if I'm waiting for it to be "finished". Any advice on how to weigh these?