Regarding the buyback proposal, there has already been discussion and a governance vote suggesting that we use a portion of the fees for the compensation. It would be a complete mockery of the governance process if we allowed a new proposal which opposed the previous vote.
I think we need to take a pragmatic approach here on the allocation between vePERP and DAO. It is likely that the bear market will continue, and it is important to consider the state of the DAO treasury. Having a healthy stream of funds into the DAO can allow for further integrations and partnerships; the funding of additional grant programs; community initiatives; etc.
All these factors contribute to the growth of the protocol, which ultimately increases the trading volume and therefore fees generated.
My belief is that prioritising the vePERP rewards will indeed increase the real yield associated with locking PERP - but does very little to improve the underlying protocol fundamentals.
Finally - I don’t think any of the options should have a time component added to them like you mentioned @LeeKB. It makes the voting process very awkward as voters may agree on the percentages, but disagree on the duration. I think it makes most sense to implement the chosen percentages; build something like a dune dashboard so we can analyse the fees; and then for the community to make another proposal at a later date to adjust the percentages based on the observed data.
To summarise - I think we should proceed with the initial options that @hanamizuki has proposed, with the appropriate % allocated to buyback. And I strongly oppose to having the “100%vePERP / 0% DAO” option.