I've spent some time going through @PancakeSwap's new "The Flip" proposal, and honestly, I'm a bit concerned about what it means for $CAKE holders. I actually like the idea of making PancakeSwap more competitive. Giving LPs 88% of trading fees could attract more liquidity and improve execution. That's good for the protocol. But is it good for CAKE? The proposal cuts CAKE emissions by 69%, from 22,500 to 7,000 CAKE per day. That's 5.66M fewer CAKE minted annually. Sounds great. But here's what I think many people are missing. 1. We're also losing a major source of CAKE burns. According to PancakeSwap's official weekly burn report from October 13: v2: 270K CAKE burned v3: 192K CAKE Infinity: 41.3K CAKE Other products: ~26K CAKE So v3 and Infinity alone burned 233,300 CAKE in one week. If we annualize that week's activity, we get approximately 12.13M CAKE burned per year. Under The Flip, the dedicated buyback & burn allocation from v3 and Infinity goes to ZERO. We're saving 5.66M CAKE in emissions but potentially giving up 12.13M in burns at the same activity level. That's a difference of roughly 6.47M CAKE per year. 2. What happens to deflation? Using the same weekly burn activity, current daily emissions and approximately 330M CAKE supply: Current model: Annual burns: ~27.5M CAKE Annual emissions: ~8.2M Net supply reduction: ~19.3M Annualized deflation: ~5.85% Under The Flip: Annual burns: ~15.4M Annual emissions: ~2.6M Net supply reduction: ~12.8M Annualized deflation: ~3.89% These are illustrative calculations based on one week's activity, NOT historical annual figures or a forecast. Actual burns depend on trading fees, CAKE price and other factors. But the difference is clear. With the same activity, net deflation could be roughly one-third lower. 3. And what happens if PancakeSwap grows? This is my biggest concern. Even if v3 and Infinity trading volumes triple, their mandatory CAKE buyback & burn allocation remains zero under the proposed model. And if some volume moves from v2 to v3/Infinity, the remaining v2 burn could decrease too. PancakeSwap could become a much bigger and more successful DEX without that growth translating into additional CAKE buybacks. As a long-term holder, that's something I find difficult to ignore. 4. Is there a better solution? I don't think LPs and CAKE holders need to compete with each other. Why not keep 88% for LPs, but split the remaining 12% between Treasury and CAKE buybacks? For example: 88% LPs 8% CAKE buyback & burn 4% Treasury That's just an example, not a proven optimal allocation. Based on the latest week's activity, preserving roughly 53% of the previous v3/Infinity burns would be enough to offset the proposed emissions reduction. An 8% allocation could achieve that if the historical weighted-average burn share was around 15%. We need actual fee data across all chains and pools to calculate the correct percentage. I'm not against The Flip. I want PancakeSwap to attract more liquidity, generate more volume and compete with the best DEXs. But I also want CAKE holders to benefit directly when that happens. @PancakeSwap @Headchef_pcs @chef_mustard @DYOR_WAGMI I couldn't share my feedback directly on the governance forum, so I'm bringing it here. Could the team publish a proper before-and-after comparison of net CAKE deflation, ideally using 12 months of historical fees? And have you considered keeping a portion of v3/Infinity fees for buybacks and burns instead of sending the entire 12% to Treasury? I think there's room for a solution that works for everyone. The proposal is still open for discussion. I'd genuinely appreciate hearing the team's thoughts. Full proposal: forum.pancakeswap.finance/t/… Official weekly burn report: xitter.cf/PancakeSwap/status/210…