There are other ways to reduce sell pressure. I’m afraid without really discussing the other implications of such a proposal, and focussing on what the ‘happy path’ is, this isn’t really a robust proposal. You’re repeating “extra time lock restricts flow of liquidity which reduces sell pressure on dollars”. When I asked about why you think this happens, I was looking to hear why you think there is a causal link between the two, not to just restate your hypothesis.
subjective difference on what we believe an LP’s responsibility is to the protocol
LP’s don’t have a responsibility to the protocol. They become LPs because they speculate that by doing so there is material gain. People don’t become altruistic LPs, and I certainly know that you aren’t. You LP because there are gains to be made. As does everyone else, as such it is an economic proposition and if the incentive structures aren’t right, and you want to just enforce a rule on people without understanding the implications (because people will react in their best interest) then this ISN’T in the interest of protocol health (which is also an incentive for LPs NOT a responsibility).
After seigniorage payouts nothing stops people from claiming the seigniorage and selling. There is still a rush to sell. Time locking the pools won’t just affect dollars, it also affects SHARE-ETH holders which has nothing to do with dollars other than seigniorage payouts (which are unaffected by timelocks anyway). Then there’s case where restricting freedom of liquidity movement means people that are locked up that cannot exit their liquidity away from an upcoming debase means they just get punished for being a LP. This completely changes the incentives for becoming a LP of USDX because of the higher risk (you will only LP if you are sure within the timelock period there will be no debase).
My point is, there are many other ways to reduce sell pressure on dollar (which is clearly your only intention here) and your proposed change will affect much more in the protocol than ONLY reduce sell pressure on the dollar (which you neglected to address here). Like you said:
if it benefits the long term health and viability of the protocol
And a strong case needs to be made for why it definitely will have this effect. Asserting that it will is not an argument. Until it’s made I think we don’t really have a discussion here.