“lack of effective use of cake tokens”? - we have gaming, earning via staking, farms, revenue sharing, platform fees used to give it value overtime (buyback), etc. Own chain is a bit more complex but a good route. Thanks for your suggestions 
3 Likes
Thanks for linking the proposal. As currently structured, the proposal does not cover a comprehensive analysis on the long-term impacts. Let me address some points in the proposal above and a few aspects which we have considered in previous proposals that are directly relevant to this.
-
The protocol last burnt ~350k CAKE in November (November 2023: PancakeSwap's CAKE Burn | PancakeSwap), therefore based on that figure deflation is currently closer ~80k CAKE/week. Therefore, there is not that much extra emissions that can be given to CAKE stakers as suggested above. Protocol-level income must almost double to sustain the deflation in the proposal above.
-
Back when the 1-year locked CAKE staking pool was present (and prior to emissions to it being reduced via governance), onchain analysis of the staker group suggested that many were not re-locking their CAKE despite the much higher APRs than is suggested in this proposal. The data suggested that while there were more locked CAKE, there were also more CAKE entering the liquidity pools that the revenue buyback-and-burn mechanism had to support in order to support the multichain DEX ecosystem. The assumption that higher APRs automatically lead to a long-term higher % of CAKE staked in the system has been proven to be untrue based on data.
-
Point 2 above affects the PancakeSwap protocol’s ability to incentivize farms and be competitive with other DEXs to keep LPs and generate the trading fees that fuel the deflation. Having to increase liquidity mining rewards to keep LPs and generate trading volumes/fees makes it harder to be competitive with other DEXs in the long-term, and further decreases the possibility of maintaining the deflationary tokenomics that the protocol has managed to achieve.
With the above being said, if you feel strongly about the proposal, we would ask that a more comprehensive proposal be written up, considering the effects on the entire PancakeSwap system, since all parts of it use CAKE as a utility.
8 Likes
Your proposal assumes new rewards will be locked but this is not the case as we saw in 1st gen lock which expired in Apr 2023 when ppl tended to sell for profit. Forget more cakes we need to go exactly in the opposite direction. No more free cakes and more expensive current circulating cakes. In simple words less cakes = scarcity goes up = value goes up = piece price goes up = locked cake increases as the increasing value over the time because of low inflation idealy deflation. This changes the cake nature from short-term trading token to longterm lifetime investment. Trust me you do not want to increase rewards this is increasing inflation and reversing all the effort team does to achieve deflation.
1 Like
I’m very happy to look at the kitchen and raise such a discussion. For setting the hardtop to 450 million, I would prefer to set it to 420 million.First of all, I agree with the kitchen. In order to maintain the operation of projects such as farms in extreme cases, choose a more flexible hard top.Then we can calculate it.We generate 1.36288007=274176 every week.I noticed that the weekly forecast and lottery can basically be maintained at around 70,000. If you add some fragmentary income, you can probably destroy 70000+.Then, there are only 200,000 cakes left to be destroyed, and this task is mainly completed by transaction fees.Even in extreme cases, such as the price of cakes has gone up a lot or the transaction volume is poor, we should still have confidence in destroying 100,000 cakes, right?Then, our net emissions will be below 100,000 in one week, 5,200,000 in one year and 20,800,000 in four years, which is enough for us to develop well in a whole cycle.Therefore, I think it is appropriate to set the hardtop at 420 million. At the same time, 420 million is also a value that has a multiple relationship with the total amount of 21 million bitcoin, which is also a value that should be blessed.
1 Like
Dear @ChefMochi
- I keep data every week since April and I have counted that total net emissions are 800K since
13/11/2023 - 387,071,806
18/12/2023 - 386,271,349 (800,457)
That is -175,000 per week
Please let me know what have I undestood wrong.
These numbers are all from screenshots from your homepage every week right after the w.burning. So that’s why I had the idea to use 50% for rewards and attract more people to increase their veCakes
-
I just suggest to share the 50% of the deflating cakes. This way there will still be deflation
-
I am not Defi guru yet so I trust your opinion. I am a marketing expert (20+ years) and what I know most is how to make right people buy my clients products by finding the right match.
In my proposal 93% o people select more passive income. The message I want to share here is this. Please find what people need more while keep deflation. If locked cakes increase in order to have high APRs the circulating supply will be lower and thus deflation will have more impact to Cake.
Anyways I know you are the best at what you do and you will find the best path to success!
1 Like
Dear @Radovan thanks for you answer!
How long are you in PCS? I am here since 2021 and I locked for one year in 24/04/2022. I locked 1568 Cake for 8,58$ each total 13689$
After one year my cakes were 2683 for 2,93$ total 7748$
When I locked APY was 120% and at the end the APY was less than 20%. During that period the APy decreased a lot so people did not unlock for profit (!?) but because of the low APY.
When people lock their cakes the circulating supply is decreasing so there are less cakes available in the market and so the deflation will increase much more the price.
Just some thoughts… thanks anyway!
1 Like
I’m with cake since 2020 and also locked as many for 1y in 2022 but I was in the profit at that time. My average buy is 0.2usd per cake so selling in 2023 was profit for early adopters (i did not sell at ath and did not sell in 2023). Removing locked cake from circulating supply is just let’s say marketing to show less circulation normaly you should take them into consideration as those tokens were emited so there is no deflation impact when ppl lock their cakes at all. This is how serious investors look at it. Reducing rewards, and redirecting them to chest for future growth is the way the most of us want see as now we are burning a lot and saying we need cake for growth…does not really makes sense to me. Why pretending deflation if we need cake for growth? Im sure team should hire some experts in the field to avoid another bad decision like 1st gen lock was.
3 Likes
Dear @Radovan i get your point but obviously you are aware of blockchain technologies and know what will attract serious investors. But in prespective os a marketing advisor you have to consider what the majority want.
Please try to understand what people want and not what you personally what. If you give majority what they need even at least they will invest more. Perceived value is more important than the real value itself because a token without community and holders will not grow. 5milion cakes were converted to Cakepie for some other token in order to earn rewards. Try to think this. Those people lost forever their genuine cakes in order to earn rewards.
Anyways I just suggest a small increase to rewards by decreasing deflation. I see it like an optimization to increase perceived value and attract old investors again. In marketing the old client is 8 times more probable to buy than a new client.
3 Likes
look @ChefMochi… i’m looking to Pancakeswap as a business. The cake mint is equivalent to budget to spend and the cake burn is equivalent to earning from our products. How does a business behave to be solid? He needs to spend less than earnings, in other words on Pancakeswap case we need deflation. So, why doesn’t pancakeswap provide a maximum spending rule? I mean, anything about 80% that we earned on last month? or last quarter?
We’ll have this month around 800,000 cakes to Vecake more around 120,000 cakes from “Other Product Usage” so the mint will be around 920,000 cakes.
Now, we have:
800,000 from Vecake is equal 87% of total emissions
120,000 from “Other Product Usage” is equal 13% of total emissions
If we have in December 1,500,000 cake earnings (burn) we’ll have on next month or quarter this values to mint (spend)
80% of 1,500,000 = 1,200,000 to spend
20% of 1,500,000 = 300,000 to burn
how will spend 1,200,000 cakes?
87% of 1,200,000 = 1,044,000 will be distribuited to Vecake
13% of 1,200,000 = 156,000 will be distribuited to “Other product usage”
If u can’t spend at “Other Product Usage” you can put a limit on this and you can distribute the rest to Vecake
So u’ll have:
Share buyback (burn cake)
Dividend distribution (Cake pool + Cake Earnings)
Earnings and Spends under control regardless of price. If the prices up a lot, you’ll probably earning less (in cake), but now you have 80% spend, so on the next month u’ll mint less cake to face this. Also if the prices down a lot, u’ll make same projection but on the contrary. Maybe 80% is not good. Maybe 75%, Maybe 85% I don’t know. But I have sure that it can works and best of all, we will have a projection of what Cake will be like in 10 years. I love Cake, I’ve been an investor for 3 years, I have around 0.10% of the capitalization and I intend to remain an investor, however there are many changes in the format. We have to find a format that stands up, both at low cake prices and at high cake prices.
3 Likes
Oh, I forgot to defend the topic of discussion. With that I spoke, we can do a Max Cap to 400MM. I think if we do this 400MM not 450MM we’ll pass to the market a BIG, BIG good sign. And after 1 year or 2 year we can adjust again the Max CAP, because the cake will be deflacionary forever. Anothers good sign to the market.
3 Likes
Hello @dimitris. High APR were already here and see the price chart and what it causes to cake, exactly your scenario locking for 1y but getting more cheaper cake at the end. The purpose of 1st gen lock was to get more cakes at least that was my strategy no matter what will be the price of cake, you could either trade or stake to get more. 2nd gen lock with weekly distribution and enhanced tokenomy will add value to previously added cake so if you increased your cake from 1568 to 2683 you need now more expensive cake but what is more important the value cannot depend on new capital only like high inflation does. Increasing scarcity of cake by emitting less will add the value and make cake serious investment as now it only attracts attention of short term traders and became pump and dump token. Sorry for saying that but the price plummeted too much. Im sure even with zero emission we can build the value of cake but can understand some reasonable inflation 1-2% to boost growth as we normally do in real world it´s healthy. In next wave I do expect 20-30usd but what is more important we should not see such dupm and volatility in high volatile environment I do no care even 100% which will destroy the price and I´m able by trading earn more like that. Not interested in 4y lock under today´s circumstances. Let´s stabilize the price so ppl will lock for long term coz they could not earn too much cake by simple trading like selling at ATH 44usd and rebuing somewhere at 10usd before the drop coz lock expired you could do 400% so why would you lock? Hope my point of view makes better sense now and believe team will do the right decision for their baby 
2 Likes
Dear @Radovan i kindly suggest you to not see things from your own perspective…I do not do this either way. If I was seeing my position only I would agree that now the most important is the price because I load much more when price dropped because I had the cash flow to do it.
I just suggest the team to ask by creating a new proposal for this. My proposal now has 93% of votes asking more passive income (23 votes yet). If this is a community driven project I think that is something that team should consider and decide to ask in a more broad way by creating an official proposal. Then we will let majority decide what they want. Because Cake community is this majority.
1 Like
Hey, I just wanted to ask, after the proposal of reducing supply to 450M ends. When will the actual reduction of supply come into effect? I believe it can be done immediately right, as the tokens are not even minted yet?
1 Like
Yes sure let’s burn this 
2 Likes
hi sir!
In the last three months we had a reduction in total supply precisely because we burned more than we emitted.
I send monthly reports.
note: November we distributed with minting 75% of what was burned, that is, what was produced by taxes and products.
I liked your proposal to have a percentage that defines and makes it transparent. I just think it would be better to do that with the vecake season timelapse, and use an average of revenue/fees/products/buybacks during that time and maybe also use the reference value in dollars and not in cake even though it distributes cake. But there would be challenges to implement something like that.
I think your proposal is in line with the path pancake is taking.
let’s see what comes in the future!
2 Likes
Yes quickly, some time after approval.
4 Likes
PancakeSwap Fam, the moment is here!
Proposal to reduce the max supply of $CAKE from 750M to 450M!
By reducing our token supply by 300,000,000 $CAKE, we signify PancakeSwap’s successful shift from a high-inflation emissions model to the Ultrasound CAKE era.
Vote for free here: Voting | PancakeSwap
3 Likes
That would be great! I hope you overcame any obstacle on this and create it.
Passive income is what many people who already have money whant. An if they find something safe to invest which offers them a good APY they will invest more.
I could bring many people to invest for 5.000$ to 100.000$ each. These are people who invest in real estate but this market is very tiring from them since it needs a lot of research and effort for buying and rennovating and the APY there is not that juicy.
Hello @ChefMochi maybe it is a silly question but why there are no rewards (0%) for 0.25% and 1% fee tier? (As seen on the table) Is it in V2 or some other reason?
1 Like
I agree and support this.
2 Likes