I’ll disclaim that I don’t know much about tokenomics, but I do have some concerns about the implementation of the incentives for the liquidity pool.
The deflationary nature of the governance coin would be disseminated into the market in a logarithmic curve. This strongly encourages earlier-movers. I support incentives for the liquidity pool, but I don’t think there should be such a (in my opinion) egregious bias towards the first-comers. (Despite my own interest) With a fixed percentage used as an incentive, I think this would effectively cater exclusively to the older generations as times progress. This is also affected by compound interest, therefore the earlier comers will run-away with the voting pool.
I think a better incentive model might entail more varied incentive models or a hybrid of fixed + flat incentives.
Though I have no idea how set in stone much of this already is. I think there are two competing interest for the competitiveness of the industry to confront. “First Come First Serve” innate Greediness will encourage immediate and self-interested adoptions; people will be compelled to get on the bandwagon as their influence will have the most effect as time goes on. The opposing side would be by ensuring that the market place fosters adoption in the short and long term; if newcomers find that the system is stacked against them, they will be compelled to overthrow the system or create another that is better situated for their own self interest. (As an American, this is quite evident in recent and distant historical events)
So the conflict arises: Cater to earlier adopters with biased incentives (deflationary $SWISE tokens; @fixed distribution rates) vs Foster newcomer adoption (inflationary or reflationary $SWISE tokens; @hybrid/varied distribution rates)
I won’t get into how reflationary tokenomics would work, but essentially it would to some degree enable wealth redistribution methods.
Regardless Liquidity pools should be incentivized and done so in a streamlined/integrated manor.