Really appreciate you replied as I did not expect it at all. I understand all the reasons for keeping the door still open for 65M just not willing to emit more as “deflation” is a super strong marketing and a fundamental feature you are actually removing even though we are still not deflationary coz 750M is total supply today but with total emission cut I (and many of us) were expecting cut to today’s supply of 388M. All that I´m saying is, find cake for future growth in current emissions, cake will grow much faster with strong real deflation not deflation on the paper. If now I´m getting 100cake x 2usd, do not see any issue getting 10cake x 20usd in near future and you have 90cake for growth. Keeping that 65M in air for uncertain period of the time which will be maybe several years is just pushing us backward. I keep thinking that we can overgrow UNI and competitors by a strong deflation model similar to bnb. With this model will still be a smaller brother of UNI two steps behind them. Cutting it now and stopping free cakes will put pressure also on the team to work more effectively and find more creative ways of how to get the cake and this behavior will skyrocket cake scarcity. You want cake for growth buy now till it´s cheap and keep it for future :). Just joking. Thx you replied, appreciate you at least thinking about our feedback. Will vote for the “best cake” option.
Dear Chefs and team! I am 43 and 20 years I work in marketing.
In marketing when we do 5 actions and two have better results then we focus on those two with all budget. This is the way we find what customers want: by testing or reading the past data.
Results can vary from lead to sales or other KPIs depending the industry.
Comparing this with crypto I can see that product is the token, clients are the investors and sales are the token buys and holdings (stacking/holding etc)
Last two years it is obvious that investors shown what they want. They want passive income! When they had higher aprs the locked 12 months their cakes for it. That means that they trust the project so much that they locked their coins and that they did it in order to earn while holding. When team decided to go Ultra Sound everyone we lost our APRs which was the main reason we were here and locked and Instead of this we were waiting for the unlocking date to be free again without re locking. Statistics shown that people unlocked after 25/04/2023 and they sold and that’s why price dropped from 3,5$ to 1$
since then the locking only decreasing…
If you compare the pool with price you will see that there is a correlation. The lower the APRs and the pool the lower the price.
Also you compare Cake price to BTC price you will see that with locked cakes and high APRs there were some stability. After ultra sound this was lost.
On the other hand we can not see some real price move after deflation started which means that even if this provides value to PCS, investors (clients) did not buy it as we expected.
So from a marketing point of view we have to find the right balance between Deflation and Passive income! We went from
Inflation with High APRs —> Deflation with Low APRs
Maybe the best option would be to find a better balance somewhere in the middle.
Lower deflation with Higher APRs
or even
No Deflation to Much Higher APRs
I would suggest the final option. Stable Supply with Much Higher APRs. Imagine having high APR is a token which is not inflating. The veCake system is ready to support this!
Every week calculate the deflating cakes and send them to the pool for veCake holders or send them to revenue sharing.
I suggest you to make a proposal about this. Ask people if they want much higher passive income with stable supply.
I would appreciate your point of view
I was browsing through coinmarket cap site and saw this discussion. I immediately purchased cake tokens before I came to read it. This an amazing idea and one that will certainly bring cake back above $20. I am looking forward to his change, and thank you for letting me be a part of this community. 
Great initiative but too many & many time changes in tokenomics is also impact on business value & holders also…
So whatever take decision for community groth , it should be final decision… Will not change again in future …
We are waiting for Pancake is in Top 10 ranking in coin market cap.
Pancake 
extremely strategic, I completely agree with this reduction. lets go!! 
hello,非常支持这次的消减，可以问一下目前是暂定消减到4.5亿 还是以后会继续消减到4亿，如果后续持续通缩到3亿枚，那么总供应量会提议出削减到4亿枚吗
Good Idea for the upcoming market
Great News to me. Hold that this will approve now 
It’s good Idea, I agree, and will vote for this
I will try my best to address all serious and good questions (that is the reason we have a forum now before putting up the proposal), so definitely do expect responses from the Kitchen.
I understand where you’re coming from and would like to share one key reason why the CAKE tokenomics model requires some flexibility in emissions (even if it ends up being unused). For most DEXs in crypto, liquidity pools provide 100% of trading fees to LPs (+ token emissions if any). In contrast, on PancakeSwap, liquidity providers receive around 2/3rds of trading fees, plus token emissions. From a purely financial perspective, it means that if CAKE emissions are not offered and cover at least half of LP fees, LPs have a strong incentive to migrate their LP to other DEXs.
PCS trading fee distribution
| Fee tier | 0.01% | 0.05% | 0.25% | 1% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liquidity Provider | 67% | 66% | 68% | 68% |
| CAKE Burn | 10% | 10% | 23% | 23% |
| Treasury | 18% | 19% | 9% | 9% |
| Fixed Term CAKE Stakers | 5% | 5% | 0% | 0% |
The upside to this model is that PancakeSwap (and veCAKE voters) can opt to incentivize more or less than other DEXs on every single liquidity pool, since CAKE emissions are a variable reward on LP pools. This allows PancakeSwap to tweak pool-level incentives for each individual LP pool, and allows the protocol to selectively grow important pools faster. This is where the flexibility provides an advantage over the long-run. Growing important pools faster means that we can attract volumes faster, and the trading fees generated can then be used to buy back CAKE and burn them. Therefore the CAKEs given are not “free”, from that perspective, it has the result of growing the protocol’s ability to serve trades long-term.
Given the above thought process, the 450M cap is not a “target” total/max supply that the Kitchen is targeting to reach - it makes no sense to emit CAKE if the initiative doesn’t have the long-term potential to grow our TVL in important pools, trading volume or CAKE burn. CAKE should remain deflationary if there are no growth opportunities worth spending CAKE on.
As for the Kitchen team needing to find more/better ways to grow without the use of CAKE, you are absolutely right. Longer-term, the ideal situation is to improve the way the system is designed so that less CAKE is needed to keep LPs on PancakeSwap and improve trading volumes.
PancakeSwap unveiled a proposal to reduce CAKE’s total supply to 450 million, That is a good news for Cake project and holder.
Besides, If #PancakeSwap want to become the sustainable development then Pancake should develop lots of DeApps and real application for user to use such as leveraged in derivative, Multichain, DeFi 2.0,…or Business model is Real Yield like GMX and Camelot Dex, Dydx,…
Make reall value, it will become big value peoject.
One more thing, Pancake should use #Cake token for transection fee.
Otherwise Cake token is unuseful to use.
I love #Cake!
Flexman
Thanks for the reply and more details so I can understand your point better. I´m pretty sure you have all the data required to propose this direction. Got the math behind just here is the sum of my concerns:
- the gap between current and total supply creates concerns if cake is deflationary
- the 65M maybe will not be used and that´s what keeps the gap open maybe forever (this is my biggest constraint, if total supply is not reached there is no real deflation just a fake one keeping the door for another emission open but in reality burning more)
- there is no target to close the gap and reach 450M and still be a deflationary token, simple ppl will never get the logic behind
- let´s assume 450M is now a valid option and passed the voting, how are you going to release, coz being the last 3 months in deflation and suddenly we just emit 100k equals no deflation, and again a few weeks later deflation and no deflation week later, this creates mess in understanding what is the net emission and what can investors expect, buying in “deflation” but after few weeks they just realize the net emission grows. Such a model requires a pretty strong understanding of tokenomics to avoid fud when the price drops.
- agree 450M is better than 750M and 750M is better than infinite total supply no doubts was just under the impression you can get the cake for LPs rewards from current emissions, maybe rewarding LPs with higher fees as competitors do
No matter what I believe we are doing good just willing to do even better 
Dear Mochi
I agree with the new cap. 450M sounds reasonable. Deflation is very important. pcs has to find a way to burn more before the real bull market. In my opinion, pcs gave and still giving too many rewards and cause a sell pressure. It s not good. We need to burn all the cakes which have been minted for 2 years if not the next bear market would be bloody for cake. As you know altcoins lost between 95-99% from their ath. It s always been like that in the.previous cycles and i m afraid if cake cannot hit a new ath and clearly it won t be the case with the current circulating supply… Well in this scenario, we risk to lose too many investors
On adjustments to CAKE rewards, we’re consistently monitoring if APRs for LPs are competitive relative to other DEXs. If we find that particular LP pools are incentivizing too much CAKE, we have reduced them.
Please see the following Dune dashboard (https://dune.com/queries/3136760/5231335) for the summary chain-level adjustments the Kitchen has done in the last ~8 months or so, the token emissions have almost only been reduced.
On the max cap being 400M, this is very close to the current total supply and may not be sufficient for long-term growth. Please refer to the following Dune dashboard here for history of our total supply (https://dune.com/queries/2238854/3670536). It wasn’t very long ago that our total supply was fairly close to 400M. Capping it at 400M assumes that PancakeSwap will not require emissions flexibility to pursue new growth areas, which may not immediately result in equal/greater amounts of CAKE burn. The reason for the 450M CAKE maximum limit is mentioned in this point in the main body of discussion.
- Ensure sufficient flexibility for growth: 450M CAKE is a reasonable new cap to implement in order to ensure sufficient supply for future growth (e.g., gaining market share on Ethereum, Ethereum L2s, and new initiatives like position managers)
The Kitchen still intends for CAKE to stay deflationary while pursuing new growth opportunities. The new max limit simply introduces the maximum flexibility that would be needed if attractive growth opportunities arise.
Hi dimitris,
Thanks for your view. I understand that users would prefer for CAKE to be deflationary while staking APRs are high.
Unfortunately, this is something the protocol cannot sustain in the medium term mathematically. Please refer to this dune dashboard (https://dune.com/queries/3136760/5231335) for the history of the CAKE emissions. Staking emissions come via the CakePool emissions.
As CAKE is supported by the PancakeSwap protocol via revenue buybacks, CAKE can only stay deflationary if PancakeSwap revenues can buy back everything it emits. CAKE became deflationary during September 2023, in line with the staking emissions reduction as voted by tokenholders here (Voting | PancakeSwap). You can see that tokenholders reduced the CakePool emissions significantly via the Dune dashboard, and this is a primary contributing factor to CAKE becoming deflationary.
Therefore, staking yields and (in/de)flation are very much related issues. It is hard to raise one without affecting the other. We do agree that there is a balance to be struck, and the current balance has allowed for this proposal of reducing max cap from 750M to 450M.
The Kitchen has been and will continue to improve the utility of the PancakeSwap protocol to increase revenue buyback potential, which may be able to sustain higher staking yields in the future.
Hope this provides clarity on the reason for the current path of deflation, staking yields, as well as the proposed max cap.
你好。 如果 1) PancakeSwap 继续增长，2) 协议在增长的同时确实保持通缩，3) 评估未来可投资的机会后，表明再次消减是有意义的，那么我们会考虑再次消减。
[ENG]
Hi. If 1) PancakeSwap continues to grow, 2) the token remains deflationary while PancakeSwap grows and 3) re-evaluation of future opportunities at that time suggests that another max supply reduction makes sense, then possibly yes.
Why not hold a vote?
Option 1: 45M supply
Option 2: 40M supply
So where are the voting rights of cake holders? It is meaningless to insist on promoting 45M. If it is decentralized, please hold this voting proposal and let Cake holders decide.
The proposal of 450m total supply is really great but as you guys can see it still didnt attract a hype or an increase in price value. It didnt even budge to $4 per cake. I think It’s better to make the total supply to 350 or 400m so that we can start burning the max supply since we burn more than we mint monthly. And if we can do the same thing with binance launchpool to stake CAKE and earn ACE before it became listed. Cake is the largest DEX in binance, I think they can do a contract/deal to strength the importance of cake more.
Dear Mochi, I appreciate your answer. I am glad for this forum 
I did not say Deflation and High Stacking APRs what I wrote I are two options:
- Lower deflation with Higher APRs
or - No Deflation at all to Much Higher APRs
Every week all deflating Cakes that were for burned to be given as rewards to veCake holders so every week we keep Neutral supply
yessss please do it, it would immensely benefit all investors and the coin itself