CKP should’ve never existed, it’s a token with 0 value which was printed out of thin air. Yes I hold CKP but as time goes on I see how worthless it is
3 Likes
If the CakePie team is as good as everyone says, they can give CKP value elsewhere. But as I’ve already mentioned, they’re extremely slow at implementing things and don’t share any updates so I doubt this will happen.
3 Likes
Exactly. When cakepie came I thought it´s a joke, babycake was parasiting on cake and collapsed, now it is cakepie… let´s cut them off parasites.
2 Likes
The interesting thing is that the opponents of the proposal show the arguments why this is bad and explain the position from the facts. Supporters just throw phrases like “kill the parasites”, “cake ahead”, “cake above all HOORAY HOORAY HOORAY” despite the fact that they didn’t even bother to figure out how it all works because it’s too “complex” for them.
6 Likes
Buddy, your comment is wrong on so many levels that I don’t even know where to begin. First, there is absolutely no guarantee that removing staking or locking will increase the price of Cake. In fact, it would actually make it easier to dump Cake if it’s not locked. SubDAOs contribute significantly to deflation and scarcity by permanently removing Cake from circulation when people convert their Cake into wrapped SubDAO Cake.
Cutting emissions and hoping that demand and volume remain the same to achieve a higher burn rate and increase Cake’s price is also not guaranteed. In fact, the higher the Cake price, the fewer tokens get burned, which leads to less deflation from burns than the 4% target.
The veCake tokenomics are much better for long-term price stability and scarcity, as it reduces sell pressure either through direct locking on PCS or converting Cake into wrapped Cake.
Another major logical fallacy is your claim that wrapped Cake holders wouldn’t benefit from an increase in price. This is simply not true. While wrapped Cake isn’t pegged 1:1, and the peg could be tighter, its price still moves in correlation with Cake’s price. There are also secondary markets where you can swap your wrapped Cake for real Cake. So, claiming that SubDAO wrapped Cake holders wouldn’t benefit from a price increase is simply inaccurate. The price difference between wrapped Cake, like sdCake, and real Cake usually only deviates by about 15-30%.
4 Likes
I didn’t reply to your comment.
1 Like
Alright, let’s break this down step-by-step and tackle the points you’re raising. I’ll keep it clear and logical, focusing on the mechanics of Cake tokenomics and SubDAOs as you’ve described them.
First off, you’re right that removing staking or locking doesn’t guarantee a price increase for Cake. Economics isn’t that simple—unlocking tokens could indeed make it easier for holders to dump, potentially tanking the price if sell pressure outweighs demand. But the flip side is that locking mechanisms can also suppress liquidity, which might deter new buyers who don’t want to tie up their funds. It’s a trade-off, not a one-way street. The impact on price depends on market sentiment, demand, and how many people actually decide to sell once unlocked. No crystal ball here—just supply and demand dynamics.
Now, SubDAOs and deflation. You’re saying they remove Cake from circulation permanently by converting it into wrapped SubDAO Cake, which tightens supply and boosts scarcity. That checks out—burning or locking tokens can reduce circulating supply, and basic economics suggests that could prop up the price, assuming demand holds steady. But if conversion rates drop (say, because Cake’s price spikes and people hoard instead of converting), the deflationary effect could slow down. It’s not a linear “more SubDAOs = more deflation” equation—user behavior matters.
On emissions and burns: cutting emissions while hoping demand and volume stay constant is a gamble, no question. You’re correct that a higher Cake price means fewer tokens get burned per transaction (if burns are tied to a fixed value, like a percentage of fees). So, if the goal is a 4% deflation rate, a price surge could actually undermine that by reducing the number of tokens torched. It’s a paradox—higher price, less burn-driven scarcity. The counterargument might be that a higher price attracts more volume, offsetting the lower burn rate, but that’s speculative and depends on the ecosystem’s growth.
veCake’s tokenomics—locking for long-term stability—does seem like a solid play for reducing sell pressure. By incentivizing holders to lock up Cake (either directly on PancakeSwap or via wrapped versions), you’re taking tokens off the market, which could smooth out volatility and support price over time. It’s a classic vote-escrow model: reward commitment, discourage dumping. If it works, it’s less about short-term pumps and more about sustainable scarcity. Makes sense.
Finally, wrapped Cake and price correlation. You’re spot-on that wrapped Cake holders do benefit from a rising Cake price, even if it’s not a 1:1 peg. The 15-30% deviation you mentioned tracks with how wrapped tokens often trade at a discount due to liquidity or redemption risks, but the correlation still holds—when Cake moons, wrapped versions like sdCake tend to follow, just not perfectly. Plus, secondary markets for swapping wrapped Cake back to real Cake give holders an exit ramp to capture that value. So yeah, claiming wrapped Cake holders get zero benefit from a price increase doesn’t hold water.
In short: no guarantees in crypto—price is a beast driven by too many variables. SubDAOs and veCake can push scarcity and stability, but they’re not magic bullets. Wrapped Cake holders aren’t left out in the cold either—they ride the wave, just with a slightly bumpier surfboard. Anything else you want to dig into?
2 Likes
I´m with cake since 2020. Saw all the stages and all kinds of tokenomics. Yes as a busy man I´m overloaded by veCakes, bCakes, cCakes, bribes, and voting. It´s just too much noise for nothing real in return. Ppl advocating and arguing why yes is exactly this overcomplication in something that should be kept clean and simple… too many words do not change anything about the fact it is redundant. Same as this discussion. If you advocating governance let´s vote then… you will see this will pass and your illusion of governance will burst like a bubble because it´s not you who is building and investing millions into the platform and crucial decisions will pass whether you like it or not. Keep posting arguments why cake should support parasites I will do the same spending 99% fewer words on my arguments because it´s really easy to understand what is wrong here and how it should be. Whereas I´m ready to sell and absorb the drop once this passes, willing to rebuy later, you are just protecting your income, afraid of stepping out of the bubble tokenomics 2.5 created.
1 Like
Urgent Governance Concern — 25M CAKE Whale
Dear PancakeSwap Governance Team,
I am writing to address a serious concern regarding the recent addition of a 25 million CAKE whale in PancakeSwap’s governance system. This wallet’s sudden acquisition of a large voting power — right before the latest vote — raises serious red flags.
This wallet, linked to Binance and the BNB Chain team, locked 25 million CAKE to mint veCAKE just before the proposal, tipped the vote in its favor, and then unlocked the tokens immediately after. This behavior is highly problematic and can be classified as a textbook governance attack.
Such a temporary, strategic acquisition of voting power with no long-term commitment is extremely damaging to decentralized governance. It undermines the integrity of the voting process and poses a significant risk to the community projects that rely on fair governance, including Stake DAO & Cakepie.
We strongly urge that this 25M CAKE whale should not be allowed to vote in the current governance decision. Allowing this wallet to participate in future votes would set a dangerous precedent and further centralize control in the hands of a few, undermining the decentralized spirit of PancakeSwap.
Governance must remain a space where true community participation is respected, and this kind of manipulation should not be tolerated. I ask that you take immediate action to ensure the integrity of the governance process.
3 Likes
A Call for Fair Governance — Why Tokenomics 3.0 is a Concern for All
Dear PancakeSwap Community,
I understand that many of you support the recently proposed Tokenomics 3.0 changes, believing it will improve the system. However, we want to raise a critical concern that affects us all, no matter which side of the debate you stand on.
The changes implemented in Tokenomics 3.0 are not just a simple upgrade — they represent a fundamental shift in governance that leaves the door wide open for manipulation and centralization. If a single whale can lock 25 million CAKE to alter the vote outcome and then unlock immediately after, what’s to stop PancakeSwap from using this same model for future upgrades?
This is a textbook governance attack — one that could easily be repeated to undermine any of us. What’s stopping them from pushing through another major “upgrade” that could dismantle your side of the ecosystem, just like they did with Stake Dao & Cakepie?
Governance attacks like this don’t only affect one project — they harm the entire ecosystem, regardless of where you stand. When governance can be manipulated, no one is safe from the consequences.
I urge all members of the PancakeSwap community to recognize the dangers of this precedent. True decentralization can only exist if governance remains fair, transparent, and free from outside manipulation.
No matter what side you are on, a governance attack like this is detrimental to all of us.
Let’s stand together for the future of DeFi and ensure governance remains in the hands of the community.
4 Likes
This proposal only aims to destroy SubDao’s like StakeDAO and CakePie.
Simplifying Cake is nice but killing the eco-system developers will not help Cake eco-system.
Vote “No” for future of CAKE.
4 Likes
Michael Egorov the founder of Curve Finance has to say about PCS governance attack. This is already setting a bad precedence and negative impact on PCS
I can’t post the link here, but you can go and see what he has to say on his twitter account, twitter ID: @newmichwill
3 Likes
Not only would this be economic suicide for your protocol, but it would also destroy any remaining reputation you have left with such a questionable move. The SubDAOs are critically important deflationary mechanisms for PancakeSwap, as the Cake that gets converted into wrapped/SubDAO Cake is permanently removed from circulation. Whoever proposed this idea is effectively aiming to destroy the platform, along with its allies and holders.
The veTokenomics model is the best approach for aligning long-term holders with the platform’s goals. It rewards those who are committed to the project rather than attracting short-term, mercenary capital. Unlocking all the tokens would likely crash the price, as the sell pressure could become immense without the locking mechanisms in place.
This could be one of the worst proposals in DeFi history—too radical, entirely unnecessary, and dangerously manipulative. It seems like an attempt at a governance attack, exploiting the voting power of the Binance-owned wallet, which recently locked 25 million Cake to influence the proposal’s outcome. This directly contradicts the purpose of veTokenomics, which is to democratize governance and decentralize power.
This proposal will not only harm the platform’s reputation but will also devastate wrapped Cake holders, leaving them and the partners—who have contributed significantly to PancakeSwap’s recent success—completely in the dust. By undermining decentralization and disrupting the existing tokenomics, it risks destroying the very relationships and systems that have fueled the platform’s growth.
1 Like
lol you can’t compare PCS with uni ray jup or orca, vecake is the reason why it’s different with other DEx, THINK ABOUT IT
1 Like
It´s a dex. Any whale can buy 25M and vote in it´s favor or you saying the governance is just not working because you cannot buy 25M and vote in your favor? Funny how ppl advocating defi and governance are now calling for fair governance. Buying 25M is not fair then just because you cannot? Is this your understanding of fairness and defi? Is this the world you are advocating, the world where the rest should have the same voting power as you have, buy only when it suits your needs? Wake up bro, we decided for this, we should face the consequences of anyone buying big chunk and vote as they want. This is the real defi.
1 Like
veCake is the reaon why they wil grow much more than PCS. Think about it.
1 Like
This clearly states why Cake will be a dead coin if this proposal will be accepted. Trust is a delicate glass that can be broken once and there is no twice.
4 Likes
Without the staking pool, the 70M unlocked cake will be staked in syrup pool driving its APR to 0.01%.
Then no one will stake it. There is really no point in this proposal that will benefit CAKE future and its prize.
4 Likes
Facts. I agree 100%. This is clear manipulation, and it will destroy their reputation. Nobody will trust them anymore if they do this. They will burn a lot of bridges. Extremely dodgy move.
3 Likes
Oh dear, let´s vote for this. After reading all the advocation speeches I’m now fully supporting this decision as there is a lot of ppl and 3rd party projects just parasiting cake ecosystem. Even the price will drop by 30-40% and will loose weekly profits I’m fully supporting this. This discussion is an evidence it’s really neccesary because the 3rd parties seems to be rulling the cake in their favor. Cut them off finally!
1 Like