Maybe Silicon-based nano machines are more adaptable in other planets environments, but here on Earth, Carbon based nano robots (living cells) is what evolved first naturally and what we will improve/change very first time quite soon.
The innovations mentioned are a good start but it is unclear whether the current lines of research (bottom up engineering of a cell via chemically engineering a cell membrane) will bear fruit. They have some applications in carefully controlled environments like for medicine but the technology itself would not directly lead to the resurrection of dinosaurs. The infamous xenobots are basically overhyped. They primarily rely on biophysics simulations to find candidates "bots" that are made by gluing together muscle cells. This is very far from how traditional biology works. I know this forum is obsessed with bioelectricity and the research came from the same labs but in terms of practical applications it is highly doubtful there will be any unless it can be combined with other technology.
For true synthetic life, look into minimal cell projects that start by reducing the number of genes in a cell to a minimal number required for self replication (very similar to a program reducer in CS). Other efforts would involve replacing the traditional DNA ATCG nucleotides with other types of nucleotides. The Central Dogma is called the Central Dogma for a very good reason.
While I profoundly disagree with the claims made by the paper with regards to xenobots and similar biomedical engineering gimmicks, the rest of the overview is quite sound, especially the areas on genetic circuits and organoids.
It seems like artificial metabolic pathways research needs to be an area where boundaries are pushed. It would be fairly useful because it would generalize energy research as well.
> start by reducing the number of genes
Top down is status quo synth-bio. But, I found it interesting that the new mRNA vaccines used the lipid nanoparticle delivery mechanisms. It seems to be a sort of an early success for bottom-up synth-bio.
> Central Dogma for a very good reason.
Which is why there are two approaches to "life". 1. what is for all practical purposes, further variations on existing biology 2. a much more profound and general definition of what "life" even is, and the ability to generate lifeforms (whatever that may mean) from just about anything - which may or may not require anything analogous to the central dogma.