> I guess is my point and SM has made almost no progress on these things in a while. Might be time to start looking at alternatives to SM.

Um, what? First of all the SM of cosmology has come a very long way even in just the past couple of decades. It is not stagnant.

Second of all, most of the specific problems you highlighted are shortcomings of the standard model of particle physics, rather than of Big Bang cosmology itself. And if you think physicists aren’t looking for alternatives and extensions of the standard mode of particle physics then you’re confused. That’s what most particle physicists are trying to do every day. The problem is that it’s hard, it requires huge, expensive, and complex particle accelerators and detectors and that makes progress slow.

TL;DR Most physicists aren’t looking for alternatives of the Standard Model of Cosmology, because it works extremely well and its shortcomings are mostly shortcomings of the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Correcting the Standard Model of Particle Physics to account for its shortcomings is literally what most particle physicists are trying to do. Cosmologists switching gears to focus on something like MOND stands zero chance of addressing most of the problems you mentioned, since those problems are particle physics problems, not cosmology ones. You are confused.