CAKE Tokenomics Proposal 3.0: True Ownership, Simplified Governance and Sustainable Growth

[Muz_FE]

@Ufuko

we asked for support and sacrifice from CKP, but CKP holders selfishly refused

This is can’t be further from true

Cakepie team listened to the community and they made some efforts to support mCAKE.
See governances proposals below & mCAKE as collateral on ListaDAO

As the subdao is growing it eventually become harder to sustain the liquid wrapper. Those solutions are sustainable on the long term and mCAKE was supposed to recover overtime

@Ufuko

From the beginning CKP was a mistake

Not true at all, CakePie managed to get more than 12M of $CAKE out of the circulation. They also helped many protocols to bootstrap their liquidity on PancakeSwap via the bribes system.

[Muz_FE]

There’s barely no transparency around this proposal. Team is manipulating the governance votes and they are about to hurt the community one more time.

Let’s prevent that

[TikiTiki]

For months, I’ve requested the transparency that a dex with an adopted voting system required. I was ignored most of the time, and today we’re faced with the fact that they basically want to become a CEX. I don’t understand what they’re really doing. They should stop beating around the bush and put themselves in the shoes of the community and investors who have been here from the beginning. I want them to truly explain what’s happening this time, with complete transparency, considering the magnitude of all this. This isn’t something the “kitchen” or the “chefs” can do at their discretion. If they told me that with this measure, the price of Cake would surpass all-time highs, that PancakeSwap would reach all-time highs in users and volume, as well as in revenue. Even so, I’d think twice about all this. I’ve seen my investment decrease by 95% over the years. I want to know how they’ll resolve this.

[Ufuko]

These proposals by Cakepie doesn’t effect anything about our mCake Peg suffers. We lost our half of money and they did nothing. They even doesn’t wanted to share their bribe rewards with us to protect mCake investors…

You probably misunderstood what I meant in the second part. I pointed out that the CKP token was a mistake because, instead of running a bribe system through mCake like Stake DAO and Astherus, they created a separate token like CKP, effectively rendering mCake useless. As a result, they are now receiving almost no support, because we were left at a loss. Even the new token they launched under the same system, LTP, which was sold at $1, has dropped by 85% and is now priced around $0.15.

As a $CAKE investor, I lost half of my CAKE tokens through $mCake Peg. When we asked for support, they clearly favored their own token holders ( $CKP ) over us. They refused to support us from the bribe revenues we helped fund through our investments.

We, the CAKE investors, are the real community and they left us behind when we needed them the most.

In the end, it’s enough for the Magpie team to stick with PancakeSwap. Let them fend for themselves.

In conclusion, we’ve already lost enough money due to the mistakes made by the Magpie team. It’s enough for me that the Pancake team acts with the future of CAKE in mind. Magpie should face the consequences of its own missteps

[Muz_FE]

Eventually a vote will happen soon.

But as spotted by many community members, it seems the core team is manipulating the issue of the vote.

check the last post from @Cakepie on X

https://x.com/Cakepiexyz_io/status/1910424622430134603

[Muz_FE]

@Ufuko

When we asked for support, they clearly favored their own token holders ( $CKP ) over us

Completely wrong check my previous message.

@Ufuko

We, the CAKE investors, are the real community

veCAKE is the community as they are committed up to 4 years. veCAKE aggregators are therefore part of what you are calling “The real community”

@Ufuko

we’ve already lost enough money due to the mistakes made by the Magpie team

How about the money lost because PancakeSwap keeps betraying their own communities & partners, and keep changing core rules for years now?

[Dayronpro]

Sir, you know nothing about crypto, much less how Cakepie works and its purpose.

[Ufuko]

LoL

It’s obvious that even the Cakepie team didn’t know what they were doing. Instead of launching a new token like CKP for bribes revenue, they should’ve continued using mCake like their competitors. If they had done that, there wouldn’t be so many people suffering losses from mCake’s peg issues and certainly not as many enemies. But the Magpie team made so many mistakes that they can no longer succeed in any project. Just look at LTP complete disaster. And the PNP hack? Another major issue. Everything they touch turns into a failure.

At this point, I honestly don’t care about them anymore. PancakeSwap’s future matters more to me. Magpie never cared about us so why should we care about them?

[Valeron]

We believed in Cake and PancakeSwap’s SubDao support. Thus, invested in CakePie. Now, 1 year later now Chef says lets destroy SubDao and all it’s investors.

Do you think this is fair ?

Stand against this proposal and vote for “NO” !

[Jimmy]

I’m excited about the Tokenomics 3.0 proposal and its focus on sustainability for CAKE, but the recent 25M CAKE lock linked to the treasury is concerning for governance transparency. Can the team clarify this to ensure trust in the process? Looking forward to hearing more from the community!

[Finball]

Okay, so anyway…
I won’t talk much about all the point, but just gonna focus about what i’m still dreaming the most since tokenomic 1.
(Before pancake profile even created, and an era where trading competition begining to rising)

TLDR; please keep the ve governance or just ditch it and improve it to quadratic voting, if anyone remember the point system in pancake profile (of V1 tokenomic) that can be use as baseline

(WIP… FOR ADDED mOar text)

Quadratic voting governance = Quadratic voting is a rated voting method procedure where voters express the degree of their preferences.

For example

The cost of each additional vote increases quadratically, meaning the more votes you cast for a single issue, the more expensive each additional vote becomes.

• Balancing Power:
  • This system aims to give more weight to the preferences of those who feel strongly about an issue, while preventing a simple majority from overriding the concerns of a passionate minority.
    How it Works (Simplified):
• Imagine you have a set number of “voting credits.”
• To cast 1 vote, it costs 1 credit.
• To cast 2 votes, it costs 4 credits (2 squared).
• To cast 3 votes, it costs 9 credits (3 squared).
• And so on…

Wall of text

let’s break down this PancakeSwap governance issue into some clear, actionable points. Think of this as a quick crash course:

*The issue : Long-Term vs. Short-Term Power Grabs.

• Basically, we’re seeing that while locking up CAKE (PancakeSwap’s token) for voting power (veCAKE) is good for long-term commitment, it’s also vulnerable to folks quickly buying a ton of CAKE to swing votes.

• Think of it like someone suddenly buying a majority of shares in a company right before a big decision, just to control the outcome. We need to prevent this.

• Study case 2: Borrowing Best Practices from the Big Leagues.

  • We can learn a lot from established platforms like Curve and Aave.
  • Curve has a strong, active community, and Aave has a very structured, transparent voting process. We need to take notes!

• Oracle ing 3: Implementing Safeguards: Delays and Higher Thresholds.

  • To stop those sudden power grabs, we need a waiting period. Imagine a 7-14 day delay between locking up CAKE and getting voting rights. This gives everyone time to react.
  • For really important votes, like changes to how CAKE works (Tokenomics v3), we need higher approval rates. MakerDAO does this, and we should too. Think of it as a supermajority vote.

• Minor fixes 4: Empowering the Community: Education and Transparency.

  • We need to make sure everyone understands how the voting works. Like how Curve uses its forums, we need to educate our community.
  • We also need to be super clear about everything, like how Aave publishes detailed governance documents. This builds trust and stops confusion.
  • We also need to make sure that people that hold smaller amounts of CAKE still have the ability to have their voices heard through delegation of votes.

• Goal 5: Aiming for Balance and Trust.

  • No system is perfect, but by learning from others and putting these safeguards in place, PancakeSwap can create a fairer, more trustworthy governance system.
  • We want to make sure that the system rewards long term investment, while also protecting the smaller investors.

Another nice reading articel (for govern reference)

• [Curve Finance Governance Documentation

• [Aave Governance Documentation page

• [Uniswap Governance Documentation page

• [Compound Governance Documentation page

• [MakerDAO Governance 101 page

• [Synthetix Governance Documentation page

[Cakeboy]

Let’s open for voting. Thanks.

[valdorff]

Hi all,

I’m Valdorff, a hyperactive Rocket Pool (RP) community member that serves on the ~volunteer Incentives Managemenet Committee (IMC). I’d like to respond to this twice, once as an RP IMC Member and once personally.

As an RP IMC member

From the IMC point of view, this is essentially rolling back to the previous state before veTokenomics. We had a negotiated coincentive deal with PCS to get us higher efficiency. That was then replaced by veTokenomics – it turned out that efficiency has actually been even higher most of the time. This proposes to go back to the earlier state, which I suspect will be less attractive for us compared to alternatives.

When veTokenomics were proposed, there was a strong suggestion that RP should hold and use veCAKE directly. If we had built a strategy around that, I am sure we’d feel quite rugged here.

I would like to push back on the presentation of “share of emission vs share of burn”. When you go to a veTokenomics model, you expand your ecosystem to include the bribe markets. People hold veCAKE in order to get the bribes, so not including them (alongside burn) is disingenuous. A quick calculation finds that RP’s rETH-ETH bribes during the table’s time period were worth about 79.8k CAKE, so it’s certainly a relevant number next to the 6.6k burned CAKE.

Personally, not as an RP IMC member
I think @hubert makes sense talking about the extra tokens and considering caps. @phn1990 makes a similar but more dynamic suggestion for capping – this would essentially limit how much a pool could take on in external bribes (inconvenient, including for RP) but would ensure CAKE is spent on the highest burning pools (nice alignment).

I am concerned that the majority of the “issues” being raised are wholly predictable for veToken models. This was not an implementation pursuing virgin ground – many protocols had gone ahead and I don’t think the current state is a surprise. If “veTokenomics roughly as expected” is unacceptable, it’s unclear to me why it was put in place.

There are people and protocols that made long term decisions based on veTokenomics. They were given a narrative of long-term alignment. Getting a new narrative of long-term alignment without the support of the previous set of “long-term aligned” folks is quite rough. I expect this to cause long term damage to potential partner trust.

The large CAKE lock just ahead of this proposal is rough. The most aggressive take was presented by Curve’s founder and has been shared above by @Dayronpro. I won’t take a stance here (I am simply not knowledgeable enough), but the perception here is brutal. This also damages long term trust.

[Cakepie]

Appreciate your time and input, @valdorff.

Cakepie is honored to collaborate with valued partners like Rocket Pool, who have actively participated in and contributed to the long-term development of PCS through the veCAKE system.

We invite dialogue around optimizing veCAKE to further support PancakeSwap’s sustainable growth.

[Cakeboy]

lets go, lets vote YES everyone

[Cakeboy]

lets vote YES everyone

[Dayronpro]

Voting | PancakeSwap

To remember is to live again

[StakeDAO]

After a thorough review of the proposal and engaging in constructive discussions with the PancakeSwap team, Stake DAO Association, through its delegation, has decided to support the proposal.

The communication with the PancakeSwap team throughout this process has been appreciated. While alternative models were discussed to further refine the veCAKE system, the Kitchen’s proposal is supported by comprehensive data and demonstrates a clear alignment with the long-term interests of CAKE holders.

Stake DAO has substantial experience with vetokenomics and liquid lockers, having integrated 13 projects to date and recognizes that PancakeSwap is not the first protocol to move beyond the veTKN model. Based on experience, supporting the core development team’s vision is generally the best option to fuel long term growth and positive momentum.

At Stake DAO, the main priority is always to protect users first. With this in mind, sdCAKE holders are positioned to benefit more from a smooth transition to the new tokenomics, minimizing disruption and maintaining the ability to redeem sdCAKE for CAKE at a 1:1 ratio.

For SDT holders, building a strong and collaborative relationship with PancakeSwap is the best path forward. This proposal is a key step toward supporting the broader goals of CAKE in the long run.

[mrgooddlifee]

I totally agree with this

[Dayronpro]

You are traitors. The note says that you discussed how to improve VeTKN, but the new proposal, according to you, is better, and that Pancakeswap will not be the only one to go beyond VeTokenmic.