I think the solution is fairly straight forward in principle. Liquid assets should absolutely not endow holders with governance power. That flies in the face of proof of stake.
It’s okay for liquid staked assets to be transferable as long as there was never any governance power associated with the ownership of those assets. This is how WaterNeuron does it. See here for some more commentrary on that.
I think talk of this sort of thing not being fair (whatever that really means 
) misses the point. You staked for governance power and rewards. If all you want is the rewards, then start dissolving, wait… then perhaps wait some more… then restake your capital in a liquid asset that has no direct governance power associated with it (such as nICP). Doing anything else would be short-cutting the staking and governance committment that you’ve already made and would undermine the whole principle that the NNS is built on.
We should frown on any project that seeks to facilitate the transferability of staked assets that endow their holders with governance power. This should be an absolute no no, for obvious reasons. I’d love it if there could be a way of enforcing this foundational principle (rather than waiting and seeing and making ownership of these assets less attractive if needed - that just sounds like a band aid)… @bjoernek
Note that WaterNeuron just gets this right, while StakeGeek just doesn’t (at least currently).