Sweet Betrayal

Decentralization might take another hit with a single proposal on PancakeSwap, not with a whimper but with a 25 million CAKE vote.

PancakeSwap's leadership recently pitched "Tokenomics Proposal 3.0" - promising "True Ownership" while planning to strip away veCAKE, the mechanism that gave long-term holders a voice, is on the chopping block.

Behind the scenes, wallet addresses suddenly locked massive amounts of CAKE right before the proposal (just under 50%), potentially becoming the decisive voting bloc that would obliterate the governance system itself.

Projects built on PancakeSwap now watch the floor tremble beneath them — sacrificial lambs in the kitchen’s quest for “simplified governance.”

Projects like Cakepie, having locked roughly 13 million CAKE through their liquid wrapping system, now face extinction as their entire business model could evaporate faster than syrup on a hot griddle.

These wrappers – allow investors to maintain liquidity while still benefiting from long-term staking. Think Convex for Curve, but with pancakes.

A strange paradox unfolds – some projects committed to the protocol's long-term growth through innovation are the first casualties of its "evolution."

When a protocol celebrated for empowering creators suddenly pulls the rug on its most loyal builders, what's left of DeFi's founding promise?

Governance wars just got sweeter at PancakeSwap.

Tokenomics Proposal 3.0 aims to butcher veCAKE – trying to cook the defense against whale manipulation. Zero consultation with stakeholders. Zero warning for builders.

Soon before this syrupy surprise dropped, a mysterious wallet locked an eye-watering stash of CAKE, split across fresh addresses.

Unlike loyal stakers locked for years, these governance mercenaries would walk free the moment their proposal passes.

Millions of dollars in tokens, years of community building, and entire protocols that trusted PancakeSwap's commitment hang in the balance.

Cakepie, with their locked 13 million CAKE, stares at its potential death sentence.

PancakeSwap calls it "flexibility" and "sustainable growth."

The timing, the wallet patterns, and the abrupt dismantling of governance rights tell a different story.

The vote hasn't begun, but the knives are already out — and the backlash is growing louder by the day.

When governance itself becomes the battleground, who exactly is attacking whom?

Mercenary Voting

Not all voting power is created equal. Or with equal intentions.

PancakeSwap's veCAKE system stood tall on a simple principle: long-term commitment equals governance power.

veCAKE was PancakeSwap’s answer to DeFi capture — a vote-escrow system where locking your tokens for years earned you more than yield. It earned you weight. A token of trust, rewarded with influence.

Enter the mercenaries.

Days before Proposal 3.0 dropped, an address suddenly locked just under 50% of the CAKE supply – split across fresh addresses, possibly to avoid detection.

This specific address has a history:
0xd183f2bbf8b28d9fec8367cb06fe72b88778c86b

On-chain detective work by Juapia, a long-time PancakeSwap ambassador, reveals something more damning.

The first transaction for the suspicious address came from: 0x655E2488E1f116bE4020DC37AEbf9895e074c33E

Alleged Suspicious Transaction: 0xedd0305fa4d8941be31aa3b69d36d05c514262b1092dc876da3763a879a7764f

Which itself was first funded by an old PancakeSwap treasury wallet:
0x7122C91049511b58A14Ce2CE10f1aCF318cc51d0

First Funding Transaction:
0x16dd5dbbf1a3dbd2213736affc16c938f46e81654600c013f31c99cfd2cc5b19

"It is not a simple whale!" Juapia warned as he published the transaction receipts showing the connection.

This old treasury wallet is confirmed from an old post by PancakeSwap themselves.

Now this custodial wallet with deep pockets emerges to lock massive CAKE holdings, becoming the decisive voting bloc that could destroy veCAKE itself – and could unlock immediately after.

The beauty of this attack? If the proposal passes, they walk away unscathed – their locked tokens instantly freed while everyone else picks through the rubble.

When the very rules of governance become subject to governance, is there any defense against those who can simply buy votes?

Collateral Damage

Cakepie didn't wake up planning to become the canary in DeFi's governance coal mine.

For over a year, they've been PancakeSwap's biggest veCAKE holder – locking 13 million CAKE perpetuously for four years, building infrastructure, boosting liquidity, and driving yield for users.

Their ecosystem operates like Convex does for Curve – allowing users to deposit CAKE and receive liquid tokens (mCAKE) in return, while their CKP governance token directs the voting power. Users get liquidity and rewards; the protocol gets scale and direction.

"We were blindsided," Cakepie stated after discovering the proposal alongside everyone else. "After our continuous support and consistent contributions, this abrupt shift feels deeply misaligned with the mutual trust we've worked hard to establish."

Dondon from Cakepie didn't hold back: "The big PancakeSwap mistake is happening. They built a protocol based on freedom to create - and now they're pulling the rug on the very builders they empowered. Is this DeFi? No. This is betrayal."

Stake DAO, another significant holder through their sdCAKE locker, finds their more than $500k investment suddenly threatened – with "deep concerns" about a proposal that "goes in the opposite direction from PancakeSwap's development over the past year."

The team hopes "the Kitchen will take this into account and abandon their idea of changing (again) the CAKE tokenomics, or come up with a fair compensation plan."

These aren't just disgruntled investors – they're ecosystem builders who committed capital and technical resources based on PancakeSwap's explicit encouragement to build on veCAKE.

In crypto's foundational ethos, code is law and long-term alignment gets rewarded.

Here, the law itself gets rewritten overnight, punishing exactly those who aligned themselves longest.

The proposal claims to bring "True Ownership" – but ownership of what?

A governance token with no governance? A "community-centered" model that just sidelined its most committed community?

Michael Egorov, creator of the original ve-tokenomics model at Curve Finance, didn't mince words: "ve-tokenomics reason to exist is to prevent governance attacks, making decision makers take long-term responsibility over their actions… Upgradability is a bug. Don't make your veGovernance upgradable, especially the lock part."

The message is clear: once you create rules for long-term commitment, changing those rules mid-game isn't iteration – it's betrayal.

When a DAO changes fundamental rules without warning, does decentralization mean anything at all?

Deflationary Growth or Governance Gutting?

The proposal wraps itself in all the right words: flexibility, sustainability, long-term success. The kind of phrasing you use when hoping no one reads the fine print.

Peeling back the sugary language reveals a bitter filling. For the convenience of our reader, let’s translate the proposal into plain terms:

When they say "veCAKE and Gauges Voting System will be retired" – doesn't that mean those who committed longest suddenly lose their voice entirely?

If "All staked CAKE will be unlocked with no penalties" – doesn't that reward temporary stakers while punishing those who believed in long-term commitment?

"Reducing emissions from ~40,000 CAKE to ~22,250 CAKE per day" – how is this anything but fewer rewards under more centralized distribution control?

And when they claim "Future IFO and TGE participation will not require CAKE staking" – aren't they simply removing the very utility that incentivized locking in the first place?

"The PancakeSwap team will directly manage emissions" based on "real-time data" – translation: governance by Kitchen diktat rather than token holder votes.

As forum user AtuIA noted: "So what exactly is this Tokenomics 3.0? From what I read, 95% of the content focuses on removing the old tokenomics model. Meanwhile, the part about the new tokenomics is either vaguely mentioned as 'easier and more efficient' or not mentioned at all... Isn't this like wanting to tear down the old house immediately while having no clear design or preparation for the new one?"

Gamified Tokenomics?

The proposal claims the veCAKE model "is too complex" and "allocates rewards inefficiently."

There's a kernel of truth here.

Projects like Cakepie had accumulated nearly 50% of all voting power before the mysterious CAKE lock-up, directing rewards toward pools with limited volume and efficiency.

They were essentially gamifying their massive voting power to extract more value than their pools were generating.

Head Chef Philip pointed this out directly: "Numbers never lie. Some pools extract value from $CAKE holders without adding much value."

But instead of implementing caps or engaging with these projects to correct course, PancakeSwap opted for the nuclear option – complete elimination of veCAKE entirely.

Yet prominent community members like Hubert countered directly: "the solution is not to deprecate the very good veCAKE model... Just stop giving 25% of emissions to Magpie."

Kuwada, another community member, raised concerns about trust and competitive positioning: "If PancakeSwap releases v4 next, will there be any promising projects willing to build on it, trusting PCS again? With Uniswap available, why would anyone choose PCS?"

Caps on problematic pools. Improved incentives for high-volume activity. Exit flexibility with penalties.

All viable solutions proposed by the community – all ignored in favor of complete centralization.

The pattern is clear – address a real problem with a solution that just happens to centralize control.

Protocols claiming to serve the community while sidelining their most committed members – is that innovation, or just another flavor of centralization?

The Kitchen’s Defense

Facing mounting criticism, PancakeSwap published a blog post addressing community feedback – sort of.

While answering nine cherry-picked questions, they sidestepped the elephant in the room: the suspicious CAKE lock-up.

In a separate Twitter thread, PancakeSwap’s Head Chef attempted to address the newly locked CAKE: "There has been some discussion around the newly locked CAKE, and while we understand it's a significant amount, we're happy to see CAKE community members actively participating in the ecosystem."

This non-answer raised more eyebrows than it lowered.

"Given that half of the user base faces many geo-restrictions from participating in the TGE, how can PancakeSwap claim to be truly decentralized?" Twitter user Marco Polo challenged.

Their deflective response? The TGE is just a partnership with Binance Wallet, and they're making IFOs "more accessible" for CAKE holders.

When asked if the veCAKE model would remain active during voting, they confirmed it would – conveniently leaving intact the sudden voting power surge from the mysterious fresh wallets.

Even their technical explanations raised eyebrows.

Responding to concerns about burn sustainability, they admitted the 4% annual deflation target isn't guaranteed – it's "based on data from the past two years" and could falter if volumes drop.

Multiple community solutions offering middle-ground approaches – capped emissions, improved incentives, exit flexibility with penalties – all received the same treatment- acknowledged, then ignored.

When a protocol's only official response to alleged governance manipulation is a FAQ that avoids the manipulation question entirely, is this still decentralization – or just centralization with better marketing?

Governance wars don't spill blood – they just sever trust.

PancakeSwap's choices couldn't be clearer: embrace centralization or honor the commitments that built their ecosystem.

So far, the kitchen's cooking up the former while feeding us lines about the latter – a proposal half-baked from the start.

The on-chain evidence speaks louder than marketing copy: a wallet suddenly locks almost half the supply of CAKE across multiple addresses, perfectly timed before a proposal that would conveniently let these new tokens escape their commitment while other holders get left holding the bag.

Grimmace from the Cakepie team framed it perfectly: "Kitchen's goal is for CAKE deflation and improved reward efficiency. Cakepie is definitely glad to help, and I believe this could be done through different mechanisms rather than just killing veCAKE directly."

If CAKE price is their main concern, why increase circulating supply by 79 million tokens following the unlock, all while killing their veTokenomics model.

As Bethoveen pointed out, that would "trigger a sharp drop in price. Burns alone cannot keep up with this influx—not in the short term nor over several years."

The community's verdict leaves little room for interpretation.

Marco Polo found roughly three-quarters of unique users voiced criticism, with less than one-fifth expressing support.

"Will the Head Chef move forward despite the massive backlash?" Marco asked. "Was this community discussion meant to listen, or just a box to tick off while a quiet 25M vote block waits in the shadows to force approval?"

Michael Egorov's warning echoes throughout DeFi: "upgradability is a bug" when it comes to governance lockups.

Shortly after the situation broke, Michael may have been trying to make a lead by example point, by extending all of his veCRV locks to 4 years again.

It's worth noting this is still just a proposal. Perhaps the Kitchen will revise its approach, engage more deeply with ecosystem builders, and find consensus that serves both the protocol and its community.

Nothing is set in stone yet, but the community will be watching closely to see if decentralization still means anything in practice.

DeFi's uncomfortable truth sits on PancakeSwap's kitchen table: governance systems are only as strong as their resistance to change by those who built them.

Maybe the industry needed this reminder.

Yet this story isn't finished. The robust community response – from builders, investors, and observers alike – demonstrates that DeFi's ideals of true decentralization still have passionate defenders.

When builders and believers stand up to defend DeFi's core principles, might we finally be witnessing the birth of truly resilient governance that no single entity – not even a protocol's creators – can undermine?

REKT serves as a public platform for anonymous authors, we take no responsibility for the views or content hosted on REKT.

donate (ETH / ERC20): 0x3C5c2F4bCeC51a36494682f91Dbc6cA7c63B514C

disclaimer:

REKT is not responsible or liable in any manner for any Content posted on our Website or in connection with our Services, whether posted or caused by ANON Author of our Website, or by REKT. Although we provide rules for Anon Author conduct and postings, we do not control and are not responsible for what Anon Author post, transmit or share on our Website or Services, and are not responsible for any offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful or otherwise objectionable content you may encounter on our Website or Services. REKT is not responsible for the conduct, whether online or offline, of any user of our Website or Services.