Re the matching options:
I think there are ways how to approach the allocation.
The first is the purely utility-function-maximizing perspective. From my impressions on the liquidity mining program results, most of the incentivized pool’s TVL look quite similar to this (pic from Gauntlet’s dashboard):
Incentivized LPs are perhaps less forgetful that we hoped for, and don’t keep their liquidity in the pool after the incentives end. Sure, the LM programs have been quite efficient in attracting and retaining Uniswap’s market share for the specifically selected niche pools where it previously had almost none, but they have been less efficient for the short-tail asset pools. (Again, these are just my impressions, and I’m curious to see if there will be a final report of the Gauntlet’s LM program that confirms them.)
The second way is to approach if from a game-theory perspective, and just from the perspective of being a good actor in the ecosystem. Arbitrum has been great for Uniswap and DeFi in general. Here I see a much stronger motivation to contribute to the LP incentives, and try to match the Arbitrum’s contribution.
In conclusion, I think it’s a good move to match the amounts, but I want to be clear about my reasoning.