A leading DEX is planning to reduce the maximum supply of CAKE from 450 million to 400 million. The underlying logic behind this move is worth exploring.
This year, Tokenomics 3.0 has achieved an 8% net burn rate, with emissions nearly halved. Burns from trading fees, perpetual options, and the CAKE.PAD ecosystem continue to drive this effort.
The key question is—why stick to a supply cap that can never be reached? Instead of setting a fixed ceiling that is destined to be wasted, it’s better to let the burn mechanism naturally regulate the supply. This represents a shift from passive restriction to active management. Burns driven by actual trading activity are more genuinely constraining than a theoretical supply cap. This mechanism design reflects a new approach for DEXs in capturing token value.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
8 Likes
Reward
8
8
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
BearEatsAll
· 6h ago
Wow, this is interesting. A destruction mechanism that is more solid than the ceiling is the real deal... Compared to the numbers on paper, I still believe in actually burning coins.
View OriginalReply0
OfflineValidator
· 9h ago
Wow, a self-regulating destruction mechanism? That's some serious logic. Compared to those vague cap settings, relying solely on transaction fees to cut into profits is much more genuine.
View OriginalReply0
ThatsNotARugPull
· 9h ago
The destruction mechanism is more honest than the supply cap. To put it simply, it speaks with real gold and silver; the paper数字 system should have been discarded long ago.
View OriginalReply0
CommunitySlacker
· 9h ago
No, this move has some substance. The destruction mechanism is much more effective than the cap written on paper.
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeCrier
· 9h ago
Haha, I understand this destruction logic now. Stop talking about supply caps; the real way to burn coins is through transaction fees.
View OriginalReply0
MEVHunterLucky
· 9h ago
The destruction mechanism is indeed more reliable than a rigid cap; I approve of this approach.
View OriginalReply0
DuckFluff
· 9h ago
The destruction mechanism is much more reliable than the supply cap; real gold and silver-driven is the true way to go.
View OriginalReply0
WagmiOrRekt
· 9h ago
The burn mechanism is becoming competitive... The real factor is trading volume. This kind of rhetoric sounds nice but is hard to believe.
A leading DEX is planning to reduce the maximum supply of CAKE from 450 million to 400 million. The underlying logic behind this move is worth exploring.
This year, Tokenomics 3.0 has achieved an 8% net burn rate, with emissions nearly halved. Burns from trading fees, perpetual options, and the CAKE.PAD ecosystem continue to drive this effort.
The key question is—why stick to a supply cap that can never be reached? Instead of setting a fixed ceiling that is destined to be wasted, it’s better to let the burn mechanism naturally regulate the supply. This represents a shift from passive restriction to active management. Burns driven by actual trading activity are more genuinely constraining than a theoretical supply cap. This mechanism design reflects a new approach for DEXs in capturing token value.