Another proven model is the GMX model of pairing a governance token (GMX) with a yield bearing liquidity token (GLP).
There’s a general mechanic around locking and unlocking that sees different variations but they’re all looking to reward users who commit to longer term engagement.
The driving force usually with this model is super high leverage trading interest rates. It’s not uncommon for average lending rates to hover in the low 3 digits consistently and even spike into 4 digits on occasions of high demand. This creates A LOT of emissions. So there’s plenty to go around.
Hyperliquid don’t use the GMX part of this model but they do do massive HYPE buybacks on a daily basis as all that money HAS to go somewhere and it makes a lot of sense to pour that back into the L1 token given they’re just at the very start of building their blockchain.
Thinking of CLOUD through this lens could you set up CLOUD and INF into a similar structure? Technically INF is a liquidity token that has non staking fees attached. Those fees could go to CLOUD buybacks which could be directed at long term staked INF. Rewarding long term liquidity provision as both the 3,3 and GMX models do to great success.
Furthermore the SOL staking fee part of INF could be directed, via sCLOUD, into LSTs. LSTs are much like any token; they need swap liquidity. Projects could buy up and stake sCLOUD and vote to direct staking rewards into more liquidity for their LST within the INF pool. Possibly even pairing this with a strategy of staking INF to accelerate that flywheel (think the Curve wars). Definitely LST liquidity is a pretty inefficient market as it stands today.