Please keep in mind that centralized exchange can do front running easily. So it doesn't change much if adopt maker/taker strategy.
My point was, since exchanges implement this, it might be a proven model right? Otherwise they wouldn't do it. They do because it works. And that matters to us because that is something we've been discussing lately
Yes, maker/taker model works. It's also easy to understand and easy to implement. But you're also limited in terms of how much incentive you can offer MMs since you can't reward them more than the taker is paying. And you don't want to raise fees on the taker just to increase the maker reward, because then you disincentivize takers. So for it to work, you have to set reasonable taker fees and realize you can't reward makers any more than that without subsidized rewards such as in the Nasdaq scheme.
There's definitely a place for both. For example, subsidizing rewards on BitAssets will require funding via a worker proposal. We may not want to fund such rewards for ALL BitAssets, perhaps only one or a small handful at a time (at least initially). But of course we may still want to offer incentives via maker/taker. Same with UIAs. An issuer may want to run maker/taker on one market, but subsidized rewards on another. We should have both options in our arsenal. We would need to understand the development costs of each before making an intelligent decision about which to do first, or whether to do them both (or neither, for that matter).