explain quantum gravity

Nothing to quantize

yes but, can we control it?

you're referring to planck's constant, which was the theoretical "minimum" for the size of energy quanta until the Higgs boson was discovered in 2012. Previously, planck's constant was thought to be the "resolution" at which we observe the universe, which is analogous to LOD in video games. But now, whether something smaller than the Higgs boson exists remains an open (and fundamental) physics question. We don't know if things just keep getting smaller and smaller almost recursively (and infinitely) or if there is something even smaller that constitutes the fundamental building block of our universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHpsRNEJ7ZU gravity “knows about” and encodes its own quantum states -> this meets the page curve and solves the black hole information paradox

I like the duality concept here: Every particle has a "dual" -- that's what the higgs boson discovery suggested. There's some anti-gravity "dual" that we have yet to discover but probably comes into play. That's the extent of my knowledge on this topic, though.

idk I think holography has resulted in some interesting research programs, I like the ones that try to reconstruct spacetime itself from "entanglement networks" and think thats a good move, but I'm not sure it will be enough. When I look at Gravity the two things that stand out to me are the cosmological constant and the metric tensor. The cosmological constant is suspect because it was hand inserted then later removed then put back in again and it can be put on either the geometric side or mass-energy side of the equation. The thing thats interests me about the metric tensor is that it seems to be doing too much and assuming that "geometry" is the fundamental ontology and not just an effective representation. One thing especially suspect with the metric tensor is minimal coupling. It is hand inserted. It says matter fields couple to gravity only through the metric, no direct curvature coupling which is elegant but not derived. It is possible that the metric really is fundamental and gravity really is geomoetry. Or it's just a coincidence at the scale we can measure. I have more to say about this but don't feel like writing it all. A lot of it basically comes down to that there are a lot of points where geometry/smooth continuous manifolds describing "warped" space and time are suspect as fundamental vs. effective representation but basically at every leakage point we aren't quite there in terms of having the instruments to detect deviations that would prove it