All this on just a 3-drop. Runes must be some super specific thing for him to just straight up make them cost 1. Not even like first or a reduction just "They now cost 1." The common speculation I've seen online is some sort of Aura type with Enchant Equipment which is so reliant on other stuff that I can actually see them going "Yeah you get to pay just 1. I mean you need this creature, an equipment, and to pay for the equip cost still. You probably paid at least 5 anyways."

I'm guessing all the Runes will be somewhat low cost anyway, like Cartouches. It might even be just a single 5-card cycle like Cartouches. Then this card would give you a way to put all five Runes into one deck without being five-color.

this is pretty parasitic

Parasitic is ok when it is only on 10 cards or so. "This set has a unique, tier 2 deck" is a good thing as long as the set is meeting all of it's other needs.
Also if runes are just cheap auras like cartouches then you could play this and the best couple of runes in a deck with plenty of enchantress-type cards from other sets.

Every set has some number of parasitic cards. Sets are bad when the fundamental mechanics of the set are wholly parasitic (snow, spirits/arcane, energy in some respects, etc.)

Id argue that parasitism itself isnt bad, but rather the absence of self-sustainabilty without a host environment.

If Runes turn out to be auras that enchant equipment, then they can be used with aura support and equipment support, which includes enchantment and artifact support as well.

Energy is slightly parasitic since the only counter sweeping I am aware of is Melira, Sylvok Outcast, but at least it has similar counterplay to experience counters and poison counters.

Snow and Arcane contribute nothing on their own and rely entirely on cards explicitly mentioning them to be relevant.

parasitism is a scale and you probably almost always want some of it

magic probably never comes close to having too much of it in a constructed environment, but its easier to cross that threshhold in a limited environment.

I just found this card unusual because its a lot of rules text that amounts to "do nothing" unless you're running a small number of other specific cards, and wizards seems to shy away from that pretty heavily. I don't think its necessarily bad, although obviously evaluating its strength as a design is impossible without more info about runes.

that is pretty parasitic

Wizard isn't scarce to do very parasitic cards. Eldraine has like 5 strict adventure payoffs and a few cards that need food support, Zendikar Rising probably has roughly as many kicker-matters cards, Ikoria has I think maybe 3 non-mutate mutate-payoffs, and THB has Altar of the Pantheon. Ixalan had like three cards that triggered on exploring.

This is very parasitic.

Parasitism is only a problem when its on dozens of cards like splice onto arcane

I'd say parasitic cards are kinda necessary to help give actual identity to sets and mechanics instead of generic cards that sometimes work together.

I think there are 2 similar ideas here that we should use different terms for. Parasitic means this mechanic doesn't play well with cards from other sets in constructed. Siloed means this draft archetype doesn't pivot/splash well with cards outside of the archetype in limited.

Care to elaborate?
We can't really say until we have some idea about how many runes and runes-matters cards go in a good deck. If a deck with 20 runes in it is good than I agree but I don't think that will be the case. If runes are non-creatures that help you attack with creatures then this has implicit synergy with creatures that attack which you can find in any set.