I tend to agree with your point about the Incentive Framework.
It’s becoming clear to me that instead of making an exception to the Framework by implementing the above proposal, the best way to restore the neutrality of Astroport with regard to LSD incentivization is by amending the Framework, as @stefan has suggested here. By increasing the incentive max percentage change in an eight week period from 25% → 45%, the unfair advantage currently enjoyed by incumbent LUNA LSDs will be quickly remediated, which was the essential motivation of the above proposal.
To answer some of your questions:
I said that “stLUNA will likely be one of the main LUNA LSDs used for Alliance.” This claim is based on several conversations with key builders, conversations which have not yet been made public.
Regarding Stride’s volume on Osmosis, taking a glance at the stOSMO pool on Osmosis, OSMO incentives are ~$230 worth of OSMO per day, and 7 day average swap fees are $79 per day. That gives the pool a fee / incentive ratio of 0.3434. Notably, this is 3x higher than the target fee / incentivization ratio on Astroport. If this were an Astroport pool, incentives would be increased. And on the topic of fees, the stATOM pool provides a huge amount of fees for Osmosis without any OSMO incentives at all. Thus, the Stride pools on Osmosis are clearly a huge boon for Osmosis. Similarly, the Stride pools on Astroport will likely be a huge boon for Astroport.
Funny that you should question Stride because it didn’t launch on Terra first. I’ll remind you that the most significant LSD on Terra before the crash was Lido’s bLUNA, and Lido is native to Ethereum.
Clearly, there will be many LSDs on Terra. I don’t believe I have ever suggested there will be “one to rule them all.” Once the LSD playing field is leveled by fixing the ASTRO incentives, all LUNA LSDs will be able to fairly compete, and users can choose whichever they prefer.