Yeah, first of all I should state that I personally was not involved in liquidity mining program on ethereum, because all my previous experience in defi showed that providing liquidity is good idea only if you ready to take loooong exposure on an asset (6+ months not less)
BUT the same time I was involved in BSC LP mining journey, and, SURELY without ANY illusion that I avoid in some magic way impermanent losses… I put little funds there just to play with bridge mechanics and BSC as well…
So I feels that I had to clarify my situation before express my further vision.
In general I agree with an idea of “reward” for those brave peoples who decide to provide liquidity in such a risky environment (new token itself without any trading historical data, + linearly vested tokens from seed investors, etc…)
These peoples deserve it especially those who keep their liquidity for long period.
But, let me point one important detail - all these peoples made their own decisions to do what they did.
The same as me, who decide NOT to do so.
And in terms of “financial game” I see no reason why Opium protocol SHOULD compensate wrong decisions of market participants. You(and every one) have seen the conditions, potential gains&loses… and you decide to take this opportunity and risks involved.
And now, after few months I feel I was right in my decision not to participate.
But now you ask compensation… and if Opium governance decide to compensate by emitting new tokens to players like you - this fact immediately inverse my situation and in this case I should accept that I was wrong, because it was better idea to participate.
So, please, dont get me wrong, I just wanted to share one aspect from my point of view…
The whole thing from my POV is that except “financial game” there is “community thing”… which is VERY important for any project. And as I said - personally I vote FOR rewarding these brave peoples who provide liquidity. (btw, i have little doubts that in 1 year horizon $OPIUM will return to 10+ USD value so your funds will be recovered)
And we just need to find adequate bounds for such rewards.
The Opium team forget about this discussion for 2 months as I see in your latest message - yes, this is uuge :))) but I am sure they have reason for that, they use to just build products… all these governance\discussion stuff is pretty new for them as for most of us too… we all will teach to these new mechanics every new day. And made mistakes\fuckups. 2 months without response from core team in such important and hot subject - is indeed not good. (the same time - lets count how much stuff was updated on the platform! + imagine how much stuff we dont know yet , sure thing they definitely working hard )
ahh… guys\galas sorry my reply seems like a little book already haha
TLDR (LOL)
I have seen your voting on snapshot and I found it overweighted into your personal position in terms of wording.
After reading it I decide to post new thread where ask to discuss our principles applied to signal\proposals we made. Please check this out here
And one little example of how AAVE did it… I found the topic which is not ordinal in terms of agreement between participants… but check how neutral IS the final voting wording.
So I agree with Andrey here… at least you should add options for those who has inverse meaning on the subject 
But in general I think it was too early initiate snapshot voting )))
… any way… we all still learning how to play in these governance field… so its all fine
damn… I feel I never wrote that huge messages in English (not my native lng) before 