First of all, this is not a new product. It’s a product that already exists on Abracadabra that the proposal suggests would be hosted on the Popsicle UI.
There is another argument going around that Popsicle would drive a lot of users to Abracadabra. All though that may be true, SPELL has over 2x the amount of token holders vs ICE so I think it would be more important to highlight how Popsicle would be benefitting from the inflow of Abracadabra users to Popsicle.
If one of the arguments for sSPELL holders sharing fees is the inflow of new users from Popsicle, considering the size of the projects it actually makes more sense for Popsicle to pay Abracadabra for the new inflow of users and the benefit of offering Abracadabra products. I’m not suggesting this should happen but that is the logical conclusion when you weight who gets the bigger benefit.
The increased capital efficiency and option to leverage LPs from JOE, Pancake, SPIRIT are some of biggest upcoming catalysts for increased Abracadabra TVL, fee revenue and overall growth of the protocol. sSPELL holders have already had a huge opportunity cost while holding back MIM in favour of Popsicle (still waiting to see what that was for).
Until Popsicle offers anything more than a UI to interface with the Abracadabra contracts it makes no sense at all for there to be any fee sharing unless it’s framed as a donation to subsidise Popsicle.