Now that Astroport is deploying outposts on multiple chains/ It makes sense to review the entire incentive framework and adjust it proportionately. As it currently doesn’t take into the need for building initial liquidity on a new chain into account. It’d be a horrible strategy to deploy on a new chain, list pools and subsequently wait 4 weeks to start incentivizing.
Each subject should be discussed and voted on separately.
In regards to increasing the maximum change in emissions per pool, as discussed by @stefan, @John_Galt and @MaxCallisto. I’m in favour of decreasing emissions per pool by a max. of 45-50%. This will ensure sufficient stability and be dynamic enough to adjust to decreased demand.
However a max increase of 45-50% isn’t sufficient imo. A pool getting very low emissions experiencing massively increased demand (because of increased utility for example) can take many months until it reaches the desired incentives ratio. I’d suggest capping the max. increase of incentives per pool by x% of overall incentives (for example x = 5%). ‘X’, should be high enough to cater to sudden increases in demand, but low enough as to not incentivize ppl to game it.
I’m in favour of this approach over hardcoding 15% of emissions to stableswap pools in general as suggested by @MaxCallisto, because it leaves more room for the market to decide appropriate incentives. If incentives to stableswap pools are low, that’d be due to a lack of demand. If pools should be deeper for a protocol to function, external protocols should provide appropriate incentives from their side to reach the desired liquidity.