I've been looking at the relationship between liquidity providers and the protocols they supply, and the incentive structure seems fundamentally broken.

LPs provide the liquidity that makes the protocol functional. In return, they get yield, usually in the protocol's own token. But that yield is often front-loaded and inflationary, which means the LPs who show up early and leave early do fine, while the LPs who stay loyal get diluted by the next wave of emissions.

The protocol needs sustained liquidity. The LP needs sustainable yield. But the tokenomics are designed to attract new LPs, not reward existing ones. So the people who actually stick around are the ones who get hurt.

Is this just the nature of bootstrapping liquidity, or have protocols found ways to align long-term LP incentives with protocol health? I'm not talking about locking tokens, that's just delaying the problem. I'm asking whether anyone has solved the actual coordination problem.