Yes @happybeing your question was not exactly clear so I crafted my reply to respond to both interpretations and so I believe I have already answered your query on the specific liquidity perspective, incentives etc. That said none of that has direct bearing on the proposal but is a question of what people would do with their Maid-e after protocol change, and the best to would be to open a new thread asking why exactly DEXs like Pankackswap, Uniswap, Sushiswap etc are so successful at incentivising such large amounts of liquidity pools to form.
Try to quantify that risk. The risk is as high as the two teams ability to keep their fraction of the private key secure, and the communities ability to judge that those keys are in good hands via a trusted proxy that expresses some level of confidence in it. In this case David and perhaps one or two others: David+2. As I highlighted in the proposal, your already relying on this level of trust for everything else to do with this project anyway so if anyone has a problem with level of trust, there would be trust problems with the whole project too.
Note that the alternative more complicated (but probably ultimately better user experience) “Wrapped” option with contracts for automatic swaps will also have unknown multisig key holders even further removed from this project and with even less skin in the game. They will also hide behind an army of lawyers and super high fees. Is that more “risky”, or not?
Note community member @seneca and team already launched exactly this for project Decorum. The reason I did not add that to the proposal is due to increased complexity. There is also no reason it could be added at a later date if there is demand and clear benefits to doing so. The simple proposal is bare bones, and sure a neat interface would be great but it requires more time, auditing, trust over and above the basic levels that I mentioned in the proposal. This proposal is base case, simple form. Any way to make it even simpler and secure?