# CAKE Tokenomics Proposal 3.0: True Ownership, Simplified Governance and Sustainable Growth **URL:** \ **Category:** Governance\ **Created:** [April 8, 2025, 9:01am UTC](https://forum.pancakeswap.finance/t/cake-tokenomics-proposal-3-0-true-ownership-simplified-governance-and-sustainable-growth/1237 "2025-04-08T09:01:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 28
**Author:** ![KUWADA](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.pancakeswap.finance/kuwada/32/290_2.png) [@KUWADA](https://forum.pancakeswap.finance/u/KUWADA)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2025, 2:40pm UTC](https://forum.pancakeswap.finance/t/cake-tokenomics-proposal-3-0-true-ownership-simplified-governance-and-sustainable-growth/1237/28 "2025-04-08T14:40:42Z")
Like many Cake fans have already expressed, I, too, am deeply saddened by the submission of such a low-quality proposal from the honarable Kitchen. **Reason 1: Collapse of Trust** After four long years, we finally emptied the old CAKE pool and are now in a position to reduce CAKE circulation. The reason Cakepie currently owns 25% of veCAKE is simply because it is backed by holders who supported CAKE even when PancakeSwap was struggling the most and the price of CAKE was at its lowest. Now, without any form of compensation, the Kitchen is attempting to destroy Cakepie and other projects. If PancakeSwap releases v4 next, will there be any promising projects willing to build on it, trusting PCS again? With Uniswap available, why would anyone _choose_ PCS? And it’s not just about the projects—PancakeSwap itself _encouraged_ veCAKE. Cakepie was launched through an IFO. Are you now going to betray all the CAKE holders who trusted that and staked their CAKE? If so, who will trust CAKE next? Who will hold it? **Reason 2: Ineffective Utility** You mention improving CAKE utility, but in reality, how much profit have users actually seen from recent IFOs, especially those limited to just 3 BNB? The idea that this would help push CAKE’s price up is absurd. On the other hand, CAKE will definitively lose its utility as a source of bribes for gauge voting. The Flexible Voting Proposal is completely nonsensical. I don’t even feel it’s worth debating—it simply contradicts what the previous veCAKE voting proposal proved. Without any verifiable numbers, anyone can claim anything. And in this case, there’s no way to verify anything. **Reason 3: Increase in Circulating CAKE** This _will_ happen. The CAKE that was previously locked in veCAKE will return to the market—and of course, it will be sold. That is inevitable. The existence of this proposal itself clearly reveals the biggest threat to CAKE’s price: the lack of proper governance. The idea that “CZ said so” or “kitchen’s proposal got rejected” could suddenly reverse years of policy and destroy what has been carefully built up—this represents a massive risk factor. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.pancakeswap.finance/t/cake-tokenomics-proposal-3-0-true-ownership-simplified-governance-and-sustainable-growth/1237)._