Google already stabbed us in the back the moment they adopted upload filtering on YouTube.

Of course, the reason why they did this was that nobody would actually license video content to an anyone-can-upload platform and have their video sit next to unlicensed Family Guy "funny moments" compilations. The whole purpose of the system was to "clean up" YouTube to make it presentable to off-platform media companies. However, because of this origin story, YouTube basically treats its on-platform creators way worse than the off-platform media creators that originally lobbied for a Content ID system.

Today's YouTubers are copyright owners just as much as large MCN/CMS partners are, but they are not treated as such. YouTube did not even offer a way for YouTubers to monetize reuploads of their own video until recently. Sure, you can send a DMCA 512 takedown notice, as the law demands, but that requires you to first search for, locate, and watch all those infringing reuploads to check for fair use. The entire genre of video essays and reviews is under constant threat of spurious takedowns, as content bots cannot adjudicate fair use and YouTube has no incentive to consider it themselves. Even worse, you can't even block your video in countries that do not have fair use, meaning that anyone who can get Japanese jurisdiction can sue the ever-loving shit out of you and win. Not even actual lawyers know how to navigate Google's system[0]. It exists purely to privilege one set of media interests over another.

There's two ways something like SMART could go.

Optimistically, it could put online creators back on a level playing field with large industry titans. Right now, copyright enforcement is extremely expensive and time-consuming; unless you happen to know how to sweet-talk Google into giving you an MCN/CMS account. Facebook wouldn't have been able to bootstrap their video platform on the backs of stolen YouTube videos had something like SMART existed: there would have been a whole database of who-owns-what that Facebook would need to respect.

More realistically, SMART will almost certainly exist for the same reasons as the CASE Act: to enable new kinds of copyright-related shenanigans while not actually fixing the problems that the people lobbying for it want to be fixed. I genuinely get the feeling that large industry titans hate DMCA 512 as much as I hate DMCA 1201, and just wish they could make their enforcement problems Google's by suing them on a daily basis. In their defense, copyright used to work that way; but we don't live in that world anymore and we don't want to go back to that world.

Google will lobby very hard to have Content ID validated by or grandfathered into SMART, because large directionless companies like pointless laws they can bullshit. I doubt they will black out their logo like a decade ago when SOPA/PIPA were on the table. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.

[0] In the most egregious example, someone filed false takedown requests in Bungie's name to disparage them, because they were angry that Bungie had taken down their music reuploads. Google was entirely unresponsive to Bungie's pleas to retract the clearly fraudulent takedowns.