Absolutely not. You’ve misunderstood the stablecoins proposal which passes a few months ago and applied to the previously 9% of fees. The 9% was never burned and now they’re proposing to increase that to 12% and burn 0% of v3 and infinity.
如果收取12%进入国库，可以向社区公布国库的资产吗？
If 12% is collected into the national Treasury, can the assets of the national Treasury be disclosed to the community?
1 Like
x. com/headchef_pcs/status/2110612726087291301?s=46
It seems the 12% that goes to treasury will 100% be used for cake buybacks, could someone please confirm this on the proposal and not just X, thanks.
(link to tweet cut off due to not being allowed to send links on the forum)
I have been with PancakeSwap since day one, from the moment it launched. This is the first proposal I have seen that I believe could work against the interests of CAKE holders.
There is an important issue here: under the proposal as written, V3 and Infinity fees would no longer be explicitly tied to CAKE buybacks and burns. The 12% protocol share would go to the Treasury, but the proposal does not guarantee that any of it will be used to buy and burn CAKE. That distinction matters to holders.
It also seems likely that the higher share of fees paid to LPs could encourage liquidity and activity to migrate from V2 to V3. If that happens, more trading could move away from the mechanism that directly burns CAKE, while the Treasury receives a larger share of the fees. The benefits to the Treasury and LPs are clear; the direct benefit to CAKE holders is much less clear.
For years, one of PancakeSwap’s defining principles has been that its products contribute to CAKE burns, aligning the growth of the protocol with the interests of CAKE holders. The Flip would be a major departure from that principle and from the trust holders have placed in PancakeSwap over the years.
If V3 and Infinity grow under this proposal, that growth must benefit CAKE holders as well. It cannot accrue only to the Treasury and liquidity providers. There needs to be a clear, direct way for that growth to create value for CAKE holders; otherwise, from their perspective, it is difficult to see why this proposal should be supported.
I respectfully ask the Kitchen and the governance community to examine this very carefully before moving forward. Please ensure that growth in V3 and Infinity also creates clear, direct value for CAKE holders, including a defined commitment to CAKE buybacks and burns. After supporting PancakeSwap since its earliest days, I believe this deserves serious consideration.
4 Likes
Thank you again to everyone who has joined the discussion on The Flip. Governance works best when the community and the Kitchen shape a proposal together, and this thread has been a great example of that. Your comments raised points we took seriously, and the adjustments below are the result of that joint effort.
We never underestimate the power of deflation and supply reduction. Cutting CAKE supply has been one of the Kitchen’s top priorities for more than three years, and it remains one today. At the same time, we hear the concern that a majority of token holders in this thread have raised about burn speed, and we are adjusting the proposal to address it.
The Flip was always planned as a phased rollout. What changes is the pace. We will extend the technical implementation so that the rollout completes only when CAKE reaches the 20% supply reduction target set in Tokenomics 3.0. Chains where v3 and Infinity contribute the least to CAKE burns will move first, and the chain that contributes the most will move last.
This approach has two benefits. Because the largest burn contributor moves last, CAKE’s burn speed is protected until the 20% goal is reached, which gets us there sooner than switching every chain at once. It also gives us real results from the chains that move first, including liquidity depth, volume and LP returns, before the final step.
The Treasury will follow the same process as today: the non-stablecoin fees it receives will be used to buy back CAKE.
CAKE emissions will step down gradually alongside the rollout, towards a target of 7,000 CAKE per day. By week 10, daily emissions will already be down from 22,500 to 11,000 CAKE, a 51% cut.
We will publish the official proposal this Wednesday and share the link here as soon as it goes live. Thank you again for your participation. This discussion has made the proposal better.
2 Likes
I appreciate the response and the proposal. I understand the signal being sent and the team’s effort to put forward a proposal that, in fact, accelerates the path toward achieving the 20% reduction by November 2027. This is a positive step.
The problem is that, beyond that point(nov-2027), the average burn rate would be 3% of the total supply per year—regardless of the volume on V3 and Infinity. Furthermore, this rate could decrease if the volume on V2 declines.
Is it not possible to allocate a certain percentage of the volume from V3 and Infinity toward the burn mechanism?
Another question: the portion of treasury revenue not received in stablecoins is used for CAKE buybacks—fair enough, but what happens to that CAKE? Is the revenue received in stablecoins sufficient to cover operational costs? Could this CAKE not be burned instead?
Ultimately, I feel that this adjusted proposal merely kicks the debate down the road to November 2027.
From November 2027 onwards, V3 and Infinity will no longer contribute to the CAKE burn. In other words, CAKE will cease to capture value from the DEX’s trading volume. If that’s the case, what is the point of holding CAKE from that moment forward?
1 Like
First, I want to congratulate the PancakeSwap team. I have been here since day one, and I believe PancakeSwap was among the earliest major protocols to make a serious effort to create value for token holders through deflation and token burns.
I agree that the growth of a platform can drive the value of its token. But we have also seen many protocols move toward the approach PancakeSwap helped pioneer: finding ways for real ecosystem activity to support their tokens through buybacks and burns. That is one reason PancakeSwap’s history in this area deserves recognition.
I welcome any discussion about how to strengthen the protocol and create value for CAKE holders. My concern with The Flip is that, as currently proposed, it breaks with a principle PancakeSwap has followed from the beginning: that its products should contribute to CAKE burns.
This matters because we want every part of PancakeSwap to succeed. On Binance, higher trading volume on the exchange means more BNB is burned. I believe PancakeSwap should follow the same principle: the greater the total trading volume across PancakeSwap, the more CAKE should be burned, regardless of whether that volume comes from V2, V3, Infinity, or another product. The burn should reflect the growth of PancakeSwap as a whole, rather than favoring one specific version or area of the protocol. Otherwise, we risk encouraging one part to grow at the expense of another, which makes no sense for the protocol or its holders.
At the same time, this proposal creates a risk that liquidity could migrate from V2 to V3. That would be a reckless outcome. We want PancakeSwap to grow as a whole, not for one part of the protocol to grow at the expense of another. I do not see the logic in creating incentives that could shift liquidity away from a product whose activity directly contributes to CAKE burns.
If a defined share of V3 or Infinity fees were allocated to CAKE buybacks and burns, I believe The Flip would become much more compelling. We all want PancakeSwap to grow, and we want that growth to benefit the ecosystem as a whole: liquidity providers, the Treasury, CAKE holders, and the protocol itself.
With respect, I hope the Kitchen will consider a version of the proposal that supports growth while ensuring that every part of PancakeSwap’s success for users, treasury and holders.
Thank You!
1 Like
Thank you for the thoughtful considerations. It is highly encouraging to see the team actively listening to the community and CAKE holders.
I find this updated proposal to be a solid improvement because it addresses a fundamental pillar: credibility. Remaining constant regardless of the market cycle is essential, so seeing you honor the 20% target from Tokenomics 3.0 before introducing abrupt changes is a very reasonable and welcome approach. Additionally, having a clear transition period is crucial.
However, I still believe the primary issue remains exactly what my peers have already highlighted: the alignment of incentives. Why would CAKE holders want V3 and Infinity to outperform V2 if there is no direct incentive for them? Furthermore, if the liquidity pools (LPs) for V3 and Infinity are deeper, capital will naturally migrate there. It is inevitable that V3 and Infinity will cannibalize V2’s volume over time. Consequently, the token burn rate—which is already projected to decrease—will drop even further.
I strongly believe that a portion of the Treasury allocation should be dedicated to the Burn mechanism. This would fortify the ecosystem and establish the right incentives for all stakeholders. Keep in mind that as overall trading volume grows, the Treasury’s percentage yield will naturally increase in USD terms anyway
DEFI is a hard place to be for a competition and this proposal will take main weapon of Cake away from its arsenal..“strong burn mechanism and deflation”..which made BNB top 3 coin in lightning speed between 2018-2021..still BNB burns keep its price very strong..when you look at Pancakeswaps’ main rival Uniswap, you may say they also dont ve strong burn and deflation mechanism why should we but they have been the leader of DEFI from the beginning in every aspect and they even dominated entire Robinhood Chain this summer and in last 2 months they even reached daily fee figures above Hyperliquid and Pumpfun in several days around 6-7m usd/day in defillama fees list…meanwhile Pancakeswaps fees were around 400-500k daily..yesterday Uniswap generated 2.5m in fees and Pancakeswap generated 300k…and yes they dont ve strong daily burn mechanism but in December 2025 they burned 100m Uni coins (%10 of supply) with a single proposal coming out of nowhere..so they showed they can do extreme buybacks anytime..how can Cake compete with this giant if it loses its burn strength..Cake also became multichain lately and operates in mainly all major chains but has no signifcant volume or fees in any of them..we should be realistic Cake can only beat Uni in burn rate/supply scarcity and this proposal takes that last weapon from Cake..i ve similar investments both in Cake and Uni but i liked Cake more from the beginning and i ve been always thinking Cake had more potential due to Cz and Binance but after this proposal and seeing structural performance of Uniswap in this summer my way of thinking is shifting to favor Uniswap much more..it seems CZ wants this proposal to pass but i dont think he cares for Cake as much as in 2020-21…even in last bull he didnt bring high quality perp dex on Pancakeswap to compete with Hyperliquid, instead he invested in a little project Apx n turned it to Aster and now Aster couldnt compete Hype even slightly as it had no organic users at all and as a result Hype grabbed entire perp dex sector..if he would have done it on Cake, it could ve actually competed Hype with lots of existing organic users..in short this proposal can only effect Cakes price negatively in next bull as Pancakeswap cant compete with Uniswap in volume anymore..Cake can only beat Uni in burn mechanism and coin price as Cake supply is very shallow comparing to Uni and with a little kick Cakes price can skyrocket in next bull..yes maybe high end perp dex wasnt introduced on Cake to compete Hype in last bull but at least in this bull a high quality meme/memestock launchpad like Pumpfun/Pons should be introduced on Cake and fees generated from it should be channeled mainly to burn..existing perp dex and token launchpad springboard on Cake are useless and generate nothing..Pancakeswap should introduce new applications to accelarate burn much more, not diminish and lose its best weapon
The official proposal is live: Voting | PancakeSwap
How PancakeSwap Team is faking the governance
0 - This address 0xA38E0dDBF8307C5949bf795Ba7F3F710Af956c82 voted ‘For’ with 3M of CAKE.
This is not whale wallet. It is related with PancakeSwap Team address.
1 - 3M of CAKE came from 0xD183F2BBF8b28d9fec8367cb06FE72B88778C86B
proof:
https://bscscan.com/tx/0xf2012dc6ff53ce2db5160da14e3690be85e04b8eac57642348786c5de2635848
2 - 0xD183F2BBF8b28d9fec8367cb06FE72B88778C86B is funded by 0x655E2488E1f116bE4020DC37AEbf9895e074c33E:
https://bscscan.com/tx/0xedd0305fa4d8941be31aa3b69d36d05c514262b1092dc876da3763a879a7764f
3 - 0x655E adress is funded by 0x7122C91049511b58A14Ce2CE10f1aCF318cc51d0
proof:
https://bscscan.com/tx/0x16dd5dbbf1a3dbd2213736affc16c938f46e81654600c013f31c99cfd2cc5b19
4 - This address is old Pancakeswap treasury wallet: 0x7122C91049511b58A14Ce2CE10f1aCF318cc51d0
1 Like
means Cz..he just shit on cake in last bull..maybe he has good plans for next which i hardly think so