TL;DR

PancakeSwap’s proposal to retire the veCAKE model sparked significant backlash from the community. Critics cited governance centralization, suspicious large-scale CAKE lockups, and weakened token utility. Despite community-suggested alternatives, the team pushed forward. The debate underscores broader concerns about DeFi governance integrity and the centralization risks within protocol-led tokenomic changes.

On April 8, 2025, PancakeSwap unveiled its latest governance overhaul — "Tokenomics Proposal 3.0" — promising "True Ownership." However, this proposal has triggered concerns across the DeFi community, as it seeks to dismantle veCAKE, the very system that once empowered long-term token holders with governance influence.

What’s causing alarm isn’t just the proposal itself, but the timing and mechanics surrounding it. In the days leading up to the vote, several wallet addresses locked in close to 50% of the total CAKE supply, effectively positioning themselves to control the outcome.

This massive accumulation raises serious questions about decentralization and whether PancakeSwap’s governance model is being undermined from within.

Projects deeply integrated into PancakeSwap’s ecosystem now face an uncertain future. Notably, Cakepie — a protocol that locked around 13 million CAKE via a liquid staking wrapper — could be rendered obsolete. These wrappers allow users to stake long-term without losing liquidity, mirroring the model used by Convex on Curve.

Ironically, those building innovative tools to strengthen PancakeSwap’s long-term growth may now be the first casualties of its so-called evolution. As the platform shifts toward a streamlined governance model, builders are left questioning whether DeFi’s promise of permissionless innovation is being replaced by centralized decision-making masked as progress.

The governance landscape at PancakeSwap has entered a volatile new chapter.

With Tokenomics Proposal 3.0, the protocol is targeting the elimination of veCAKE, a core mechanism designed to safeguard the protocol from whale manipulation and give long-term stakers real influence. Yet, the proposal arrived without any prior consultation with stakeholders or warnings issued to the builders most affected by it.

Adding fuel to the fire, just before the proposal was revealed, a newly active wallet locked a massive amount of CAKE, strategically split across multiple fresh addresses.

This sudden move positioned the holder to significantly sway the outcome of the proposal. In stark contrast to long-term veCAKE stakers who committed for years, these newly minted “governance mercenaries” could exit the system immediately once the vote passes.

This power play threatens not just token holders but entire ecosystems. Cakepie, which has approximately 13 million CAKE locked via its liquid staking wrapper, is now staring down a potential collapse — a protocol-ending risk for a team that built on the assumption of long-term governance stability.

PancakeSwap frames the move as a push toward “flexibility” and “sustainable growth.” But the timing of the wallet activity, the absence of community dialogue, and the systematic removal of governance rights paint a far more troubling picture.

With the vote yet to begin, tension is rising and backlash is intensifying. If governance itself becomes the battlefield, the question remains: is this evolution — or a hostile takeover?

Mercenary Voting: A Threat to Governance Integrity

PancakeSwap’s veCAKE model was built on a foundational principle: governance power should be earned through long-term commitment, not short-term opportunism.

By locking CAKE for extended periods, users weren’t just rewarded with yield — they were entrusted with influence, symbolizing alignment with the protocol’s long-term vision.

But that principle is now under siege.

In the days leading up to the Tokenomics Proposal 3.0, a single address locked nearly 50% of the entire CAKE supply distributed across multiple fresh wallets, a move likely designed to evade scrutiny.

This sudden concentration of power contradicts the very spirit of veCAKE, introducing what many are calling a “mercenary voter” into the system.

The address in question — 0xd183f2bbf8b28d9fec8367cb06fe72b88778c86b — has raised significant red flags. On-chain analysis conducted by Juapia, a long-time PancakeSwap ambassador, traced this wallet back to a more alarming source.

Its first transaction came from:
0x655E2488E1f116bE4020DC37AEbf9895e074c33E

A suspicious transfer linked to transaction:
0xedd0305fa4d8941be31aa3b69d36d05c514262b1092dc876da3763a879a7764f

— which itself was originally funded by a known PancakeSwap treasury wallet:
0x7122C91049511b58A14Ce2CE10f1aCF318cc51d0.

This link was confirmed via a historic post from PancakeSwap, identifying the treasury address as legitimate.

Juapia sounded the alarm: “It is not a simple whale.” The evidence suggests this wallet may be acting with privileged insight or insider alignment, and is now poised to become the decisive voting bloc capable of dismantling veCAKE.

Perhaps the most concerning aspect: if Proposal 3.0 passes, the locked tokens behind this governance blitz could be immediately unlocked — allowing the orchestrator to exit with zero repercussions, while the rest of the community deals with the fallout.

This episode underscores a chilling reality: when the rules of governance themselves can be rewritten through governance, the door opens to manipulation by those who can afford to buy control.

Collateral Damage: Builders Left in the Dark

Cakepie didn’t expect to become the cautionary tale for decentralized governance. Yet, in the wake of PancakeSwap’s Tokenomics Proposal 3.0, that’s exactly what has happened.

For over a year, Cakepie has been the largest veCAKE holder, locking 13 million CAKE for four years — not for speculation, but to build infrastructure, drive liquidity, and enhance yield strategies for PancakeSwap users.

Their model mirrors Convex’s relationship with Curve: users deposit CAKE and receive mCAKE, a liquid alternative, while Cakepie’s CKP token handles the governance layer. The outcome was a win-win — liquidity for users, directional influence for the protocol.

That carefully built model now stands on the edge of collapse.

“We were blindsided,” Cakepie said after learning about the proposal with the rest of the community. “After our continuous support and consistent contributions, this abrupt shift feels deeply misaligned with the mutual trust we’ve worked hard to establish.”

Dondon, a leading figure at Cakepie, was more direct: “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 key ecosystem participant, finds itself in a similar bind. With more than $500,000 locked through their sdCAKE system, the team now questions the direction PancakeSwap is heading. They voiced “deep concerns” about a proposal that “goes in the opposite direction from PancakeSwap’s development over the past year.”

Stake DAO has called on PancakeSwap’s core contributors — referred to as “the Kitchen” — to reconsider the proposal entirely or, at minimum, offer a fair compensation framework to affected parties.

These aren’t just passive investors. They’re protocol-layer builders who committed both capital and development resources based on PancakeSwap’s invitation to build atop veCAKE. They didn’t gamble — they aligned long-term, exactly as the system asked.

Now, with the rules changing overnight, those very commitments are being punished.

The proposal promises “True Ownership,” but raises an uncomfortable question: ownership of what? A token stripped of its governance rights? A “community-focused” protocol that just sidelined its most loyal contributors?

Even Michael Egorov, the architect behind Curve Finance’s ve-tokenomics model, weighed in with a stark warning: “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.”

In crypto, the ethos has always been that code is law, and long-term alignment deserves reward. But when a DAO changes fundamental rules without warning, the very idea of decentralization comes under threat.

Deflationary Growth or Governance Gutting?

Tokenomics Proposal 3.0 arrives wrapped in glossy language — "flexibility," "sustainability," "long-term success." But beneath the surface, it reads more like a systematic dismantling of PancakeSwap’s existing governance structure.

A closer examination strips away the euphemisms.

The proposal states that “veCAKE and Gauges Voting System will be retired.” In plain terms, those who locked CAKE for years, based on the promise of governance power, will lose that voice entirely. Long-term alignment, the cornerstone of ve-tokenomics, would be rendered meaningless.

It continues: “All staked CAKE will be unlocked with no penalties.” On the surface, this might sound fair. But in practice, it grants exit liquidity to short-term actors while undercutting those who committed to the ecosystem for years, especially protocols that built their models around long-term staking.

Then there's “reducing emissions from ~40,000 CAKE to ~22,250 CAKE per day.” This sounds like a move toward deflation, but without clarity on distribution, it's simply fewer rewards, likely funneled through centralized channels.

More striking is the removal of core utility: “Future IFO and TGE participation will not require CAKE staking.” This move strips away one of the last incentives for locking CAKE, effectively transforming the token from a governance and utility asset into a passive instrument.

And finally, the most concerning line: “The PancakeSwap team will directly manage emissions” using “real-time data.” In effect, the Kitchen team replaces decentralized decision-making with centralized control, undermining the entire premise of token-holder governance.

Forum contributor AtuIA summarized it clearly: “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?”

The proposal claims progress, but it offers no clear plan for what comes next. Removing the foundation risks toppling the entire structure that PancakeSwap’s community helped build.

Gamified Tokenomics or Centralized Cleanup?

The PancakeSwap team argues that the veCAKE system has become “too complex” and that it “allocates rewards inefficiently.” At a glance, this critique is somewhat true.

Prior to the controversial CAKE lock-up, protocols like Cakepie had amassed close to 50% of all voting power.

By leveraging this influence, they directed a significant share of emissions toward pools that often lacked sufficient trading volume, extracting more value than they arguably generated.

Head Chef Philip put it bluntly: “Numbers never lie. Some pools extract value from $CAKE holders without adding much value.”

But instead of refining the system — implementing emission caps, tightening efficiency metrics, or enforcing penalties for underperformance — PancakeSwap chose a scorched-earth response: eliminate veCAKE entirely.

Prominent voices in the community have pushed back. Hubert, a long-time contributor, pointed out the overreaction: “The solution is not to deprecate the very good veCAKE model... Just stop giving 25% of emissions to Magpie.”

Kuwada echoed concerns about PancakeSwap's long-term credibility: “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?”

Reasonable alternatives existed: caps on emissions for low-efficiency pools, realigned incentives that reward volume, not just influence, and exit options with penalties to discourage mercenary governance.

Yet the community’s suggestions were sidelined. The result? A “solution” that solves inefficiency by replacing decentralization with centralized control.

The message rings clear: when tokenomics are gamed, PancakeSwap’s fix isn’t dialogue or design iteration — it’s complete structural overhaul, with power consolidated at the core.

Is this a response to inefficiency, or a rebrand of centralization dressed in the language of reform?

The Kitchen’s Defense or Strategic Silence?

Amid growing backlash, PancakeSwap released a blog post addressing community concerns, or at least appearing to.

The post answered nine curated questions but conspicuously avoided the one issue at the heart of the controversy: the massive and sudden CAKE lock-up that now dominates voting power.

On Twitter, PancakeSwap’s Head Chef offered a vague reassurance: “We’re happy to see CAKE community members actively participating in the ecosystem,” referring to the newly locked CAKE. But the statement ignored the suspicious origins of those addresses, leaving a deeper question unresolved: who’s actually behind the vote?

Critics were quick to respond. “Given that half the user base faces geo-restrictions from participating in the TGE, how can PancakeSwap claim to be truly decentralized?” asked community member Marco Polo.

The reply that the TGE is merely a Binance Wallet partnership and IFOs will become “more accessible” felt like sidestepping rather than accountability.

Even when asked whether veCAKE would remain active during the vote, the answer was a simple “yes” — effectively cementing the influence of the sudden whale wallets without investigation.

Technical clarifications fared no better. The blog admitted the 4% annual deflation target wasn’t guaranteed — it was based on past trading volume and could easily miss its mark if conditions changed. Meanwhile, community proposals offering balanced alternatives like capped emissions and penalty-based exits were acknowledged, then summarily ignored.

When the only official response to allegations of governance manipulation is a controlled FAQ that dodges the core issue, it raises a sobering question:

Is this decentralized governance — or just centralized control wrapped in the language of community?

Governance wars don’t spill blood, but they do erode trust. PancakeSwap now stands at a crossroads: uphold its decentralized foundation or continue down a path that concentrates control in the hands of a few.

So far, the team appears to be choosing the latter. Carefully worded proposals and FAQ pages are doing little to obscure the reality laid bare on-chain: a coordinated lock-up of nearly half the veCAKE supply by newly activated wallets, timed precisely to influence a proposal that would eliminate veCAKE’s very premise, long-term commitment.

Grimmace from Cakepie summed it up succinctly: “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 price stability is the primary concern, why inject 79 million unlocked CAKE into circulation while dismantling the lock-in mechanism designed to reduce sell pressure? As user Bethoveen noted, “Burns alone cannot keep up with this influx, not in the short term nor over several years.”

Community sentiment offers no ambiguity. According to Marco Polo’s tally, roughly 75% of unique users criticized the proposal, while fewer than 20% voiced support. His question cuts to the heart of the matter: “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 reminder resonates across the DeFi landscape: “Upgradability is a bug” when applied to governance commitments. His symbolic move to re-lock all veCRV positions for four years offers a stark contrast to PancakeSwap’s current trajectory.

Importantly, this remains a proposal, not yet policy. There is still room to recalibrate. PancakeSwap has the opportunity to respond to the overwhelming community feedback, engage meaningfully with ecosystem stakeholders, and design a governance model that balances long-term sustainability with fair representation.

The broader takeaway is clear: in DeFi, governance is only as resilient as its ability to resist manipulation by those closest to the controls.

This proposal might yet become a turning point, a reminder that decentralization must be defended, not just declared. And in the strong, unified pushback from the community, there is a glimmer of hope that the next era of DeFi governance will be shaped not by quiet consolidations of power, but by the conviction of those who still believe in its founding ideals.

Thank you for reading our latest Crypto Hack story.
Like, Subscribe and Share for more crypto hack content below.