Doesn’t fix the inherent issue of asymmetries, they don’t depend on the TAO emissions. It’s only about the difference between ALPHA injected and ALPHA emitted (there is no difference currently).
The fact that a liquidity asymmetry will happen, that may or may not affect newer subnets, is in itself something that should not happen (ideally). The chain should not treat subnets differently, the same way how it treats all subnets equally today.
But that’s also only one of them, there are also the longer ALPHA halvings, slower root:ALPHA proportion, and worse liquidations (when deregistered).
It will not be “fair” as in no asymmetries by keeping the 21M cap, because it’s impossible to inject ALPHA based on the TAO block emission (as is) and in the future only 5M TAO is left to be minted, but the subnet still needs to mint 21M ALPHA (which is more than twice the TAO to be minted), so there inevitably will be asymmetries, we can just work on ways to potentially minimize them, like subnet owners being able to burn emissions reducing their ALPHA_out or some other ways like “abandoning” the subsidy towards the sum of ALPHA prices of 1, and scaling ALPHA injected with the ALPHA block emission, which then would need to result in the re-distribution of TAO emissions once the ALPHA block emission < TAO block emission so that there is no buying pressure on those subnets from that effect, and it would mean that newer subnets would need to have a lower and lower ALPHA price when calculating the ALPHA injected, so that it still can be 1 in the future.
There is no simple way of keeping all as is and removing them (asymmetries), something has to be changed, the question is what the most agreed on change should be/will be, and there is no other change (yet) that could keep the 21M while removing them entirely.