[PancakeSwap] [FINAL] [STIP - Round 1]

Grant Overview


Applicant Name:

Chef Maroon

Project Name:


Project Description

PancakeSwap is a multi-chain decentralized exchange (DEX), currently live on Arbitrum One, with an expansive product suite (including launchpads and perpetuals).

Team Members and Qualifications:

Maroon (BD Chef)
Mochi (Head Chef)
Icy (BD Chef)
More details on wider team: https://docs.pancakeswap.finance/team/the-kitchen-team

Project Links:

Website: https://pancakeswap.finance/
Github: PancakeSwap · GitHub
Twitter: https://twitter.com/PancakeSwap
Telegram: Telegram: Contact @pancakeswap
Discord: PancakeSwap
Docs: https://docs.pancakeswap.finance/

Contact Information

TG: Telegram: Contact @ChefMaroon
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ChefMaroon
Email: info@pancakeswap.com

Do You Acknowledge That Your Team Will Be Subject to a KYC Requirement?:



Requested Grant Size:

200,000 ARB (adjusted from original 500,000 ARB ask, with more details here)

Qualification Check:

Beacon Grants (<= 200K ARB)
Live on Arbitrum for at least 2 months
Meets one of the following criteria:
$1.5M TVL
$2M 30D cumulative volume

PancakeSwap would be live on Arbitrum for >2 months by end of voting period - :white_check_mark: Beacon
PancakeSwap has $2.9M in TVL - :white_check_mark: Beacon
PancakeSwap has $61M in 30d cumulative volume - :white_check_mark: Beacon

Grant Matching:

156,000 CAKE (100% of grant value based on current prices)

Over the next year, PancakeSwap is committed to match the grant with at least 156,000 CAKE (~100% of grant’s value based on current prices). This is distributed via our yield farms, and has been ongoing since we deployed on Arbitrum.

EDIT: There was an oversubscription rate of 2.5x after the application deadline closed, hence we proportionally reduced our grant request amount to 200k ARB. This small, but meaningful decision was also made after noticing many homegrown projects applying for the grant.

Grant Breakdown:

  1. 80k ARB (40%) will be used to incentivize liquidity for core pairs, such as USDC-ETH, USDT-ETH, USDC-USDT, and ARB-ETH – this is essential for other DeFi legos (especially lending / borrowing protocols) to operate smoothly
  2. 120k ARB (60%) will be used to incentivize liquidity for non-core pairs, and to increase traction for high-impact products that we intend to port over to Arbitrum. Where appropriate, we will incentivize liquidity for ARB-TOKEN pairs.

EDIT: We changed to a 40-60 allocation split after listening to community feedback. This way, a larger proportion of the grant tokens will go towards incentivizing native projects’ liquidity, as well as attracting newer projects to deploy on Arbitrum

As our PancakeSwap users are significantly sticky to our DEX, we will use the 40% allocation to build up an adequate amount of liquidity for core tokens (e.g. ARB/ETH/USDC/USDT).

For non-core pairs, we will prioritize pairs that will attract high volumes and TVL; we will employ a manual process to identify and incentivize key pairs on Arbitrum, reviewing and adjusting our distribution allocation weekly. We commit to communicating these distributions and rationale to the Arbitrum community every two weeks. Where appropriate, we will do ARB-TOKEN pairs.

For high-impact products, we will look to port over both (i) battle-tested products which have demonstrated a track record of traction and usage (e.g. our Prediction product), and (ii) newer (and more experimental) products which may have the potential to meaningfully benefit the Arbitrum ecosystem and community (e.g. Position Manager Marketplace). Once these products are ported over and start receiving grant tokens, we will communicate their performance to the Arbitrum community every two weeks.

If at the end of the grant period, there are any tokens remaining, they will be returned to the Arbitrum DAO.

Funding Address:


Funding Address Characteristics:

3/6 multisig

Contract Address:

For incentivizing core and non-core pairs, we will be distributing the funds via Merkl - its relevant smart contracts can be found here.

For incentivizing high-impact products, the method of fund distribution will vary - we will publish the relevant smart contracts in our bi-weekly status updates.



  1. Increase TVL for Arbitrum through increased liquidity on Arbitrum PancakeSwap
  2. Increase volume, transactions, and sequencer fees for Arbitrum through increased volume on Arbitrum PancakeSwap
  3. Increase user engagement for Arbitrum by cross-pollinating our large user base on the BNB Chain with Arbitrum PancakeSwap

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs):

  1. TVL - to maintain a 30D average of $20M TVL on 1 Mar 2024 (~8x growth)
  2. Volume - to target Top 5 DEX by daily volumes (30D average) on 1 Mar 2024 (~4x growth based on today’s rankings)
  3. Daily active users (DAU) - to maintain DAU (30D average) of 4,000 on 1 Mar 2024 (~5x growth)
  4. Volume / TVL Ratio will be benchmarked with other DEXes, to ensure that grant incentives are distributed efficiently

UPDATE: Despite reducing our grant request, we are keeping the KPIs unchanged. We will continue working towards these targets by the stipulated deadline, although we recognize it will be a more challenging task given our lowered grant request amount.

How will receiving a grant enable you to foster growth or innovation within the Arbitrum ecosystem?:

It enables us to jumpstart liquidity on Arbitrum, using our battle-tested DEX platform that is already the second largest DEX in total chain volumes. We have started incentivizing liquidity on Arbitrum with CAKE tokens, but this grant would allow us to increase the size and velocity of our incentivization program.

With the grant, we will call on our existing partners on other chains to deploy their protocol and token on Arbitrum, helping them incentivize their token liquidity for a smoother onboarding process. We will also incentivize token pairs of both existing partners and homegrown projects on Arbitrum to help them boost token liquidity and volumes. Where appropriate, we will incentivize ARB-TOKEN pairs.

While we acknowledge that capital is very liquid in this market environment, we are confident that users will continue to use PancakeSwap beyond the incentive period for several empirical reasons: our capital efficient v3 DEX; sizable community reach; wide range of products, and our ability for further incentivization via CAKE in the long-term. We have seen strong evidence for this outcome of sustained protocol (and chain) usage on our various chain deployments.

Once we have garnered a decent user base on Arbitrum, we will look towards bringing over some of our products from the BNB Chain (Lottery, Pottery, Prediction, etc.), depending on the community’s needs. Our Perpetuals product is already live on Arbitrum here, while our launchpad product (IFO) is ready for launch - we are in the process of lining up suitable launch projects.

Justification for the size of the grant:

Based on @tnorm’s recommendation, we qualify under the ‘Beacon Grant’ category as our 30D trading volume exceeds $2M, our TVL exceeds $1.5M, and we would have deployed on Arbitrum for >2 months by the end of the voting period.

As of posting, the Week of 24th September has not been concluded, and therefore the volume data for the last bar is incomplete

To meaningfully demonstrate our commitment to Arbitrum’s growth, we are intending to match at least 100% of the grant’s dollar value with CAKE over the next year, ensuring that the growth we anticipate during the grant period will be sustained in the long run.

Further, we have hosted two Galxe campaigns here and here to encourage our user base to use Arbitrum PancakeSwap, successfully attracting >8.6k and >2.7k participants to swap and provide LP.

Execution Strategy:

  1. The funds will first be sent to our multisig address 0xeCc90d54B10ADd1ab746ABE7E83abe178B72aa9E
  2. Over a period of 16 weeks, we will manually inject ARB incentives on a weekly basis into the respective smart contracts on Merkl, based on the allocation: 40% to core pairs (e.g. USDC-ETH, USDT-ETH, USDC-USDT, ARB-ETH), and up to 60% to non-core pairs that bring high volumes and TVL. ARB incentives for high-impact products will be handled separately.
  3. Within the core pairs allocation, we will aim to distribute the grant incentive effectively. Our priority is to achieve high volumes and TVL for both PancakeSwap and Arbitrum, and will review and adjust the allocation weekly based on the token pairs’ performance, reporting bi-weekly to the Arbitrum community.
  4. Within the non-core pairs/high-impact products allocation, for non-core pairs, we will similarly aim to distribute the grant incentive effectively. As part of the process, we will manually engage with projects (those within and beyond Arbitrum) and their communities to provide liquidity on Arbitrum PancakeSwap. We aim to attract many of our existing partners on other chains to deploy on Arbitrum PancakeSwap. We will also aim to support homegrown projects. As appropriate, we will incentivize ARB-TOKEN pairs
  5. Within the non-core pairs/high-impact products allocation, for high-impact products, we will distribute the grant incentive to further increase product traction. We are aware that badly-designed products may hide behind extravagant incentives, and will transparently communicate metrics, such as DAU and product activity output, on a bi-weekly basis to the Arbitrum community. For instance, for a product such as Prediction, we may use the grant incentive to augment the payout, to build up a critical mass of users that will be able to sustain more Prediction pairs (e.g. ARB, BTC, ETH, LINK), eventually leading to a growing user base.
  6. Ultimately, for both core and non-core pairs, we will strive to optimize our incentive structure to achieve the highest TVL and volume possible with our given grant size, similar to what we have been doing with our native CAKE emission thus far. The allocation will be reviewed and adjusted weekly based on performance. For benchmarking, as of writing, our Volume/TVL ratio on Arbitrum is roughly 100%, which is fairly efficient.
  7. ARB incentives will be injected with the following parameters on Merkl: 80% fees, 10% Token0, 10% Token1. This is to ensure we encourage liquidity providers to seed tight liquidity in the respective pools, hence optimizing capital efficiency.
  8. We will continue to invite liquidity managers and yield farming protocols to build on top of us to deepen our TVL and improve our user experience. Currently, we are integrated with DeFiEdge on Arbitrum and will be integrated with Gamma shortly. If a liquidity manager has received a grant and is keen on incentivizing the same pair, it will enhance the incentive efficiency of that pair.

Grant Timeline:

  1. 200k ARB = 12,500 ARB weekly for 16 weeks
  2. 40% to core pairs = 5,000 ARB weekly for 16 weeks
  3. 60% to non-core pairs and high-impact products = 7,500 ARB weekly for 16 weeks
  4. ~100% CAKE matching will be distributed via our yield farms over the next year

Do you accept the funding of your grant streamed linearly for the duration of your grant proposal, and that the multisig holds the power to halt your stream?



Is the Protocol Native to Arbitrum?:

We are a multi-chain DEX that originated from the BNB Chain, but we are rapidly expanding on other chains, with Arbitrum being a key focus. We are keen to cross-pollinate our >100k DAU from the BNB Chain to Arbitrum PancakeSwap.

On what other networks is the protocol deployed?:

BNB Chain, Ethereum, Aptos, zkSync Era, Base, Linea, and Polygon zkEVM.

What date did you deploy on Arbitrum?:

10 Aug 2023

Protocol Performance:

Our protocol performance can be found here and on DeFiLlama. Summary of key metrics:

  1. $1.3B TVL ($2.9M on Arbitrum)
  2. $7.3B volume in Aug 2023 ($61M cumulative 30D volume on Arbitrum)
  3. 0.95x daily volume (7D average) / TVL ratio on Arbitrum
  4. 108k DAU (7D average) on 15 Sep 2023 (878 on Arbitrum)

Protocol Roadmap:

Our public roadmap can be found here. The key updates are our v3 Position Manager Marketplace, where users can have their v3 liquidity managed seamlessly for them, and our vCAKE gauge update that will increase efficiency of project teams’ incentivization on PancakeSwap.

Audit History:

Our extensive list of audits can be found here.

SECTION 5: Data and Reporting

Is your team prepared to create Dune Dashboards for your incentive program?:

Yes, we already have a comprehensive list of Dune Dashboards here. Creating one to track the results of our incentive program would not be a problem.

Does your team agree to provide bi-weekly program updates on the Arbitrum Forum thread

Yes, we will summarize key insights from our Dune Dashboard and present them bi-weekly on the Arbitrum Forum.

Does your team acknowledge that failure to comply with any of the above requests can result in the halting of the program’s funding stream?:


Pancakeswap has been on Arbitrum for less than 2 months, so I personally believe that this should be reduced to around 100k at most.

Whilst PCS has been a large name on BSC, this proposal needs to be specifically focused on driving value for Arbitrum.

Unfortunately, it’s just way too soon to even know the success of performance of Pancake on Arbitrum, given its limited time of deployment.

For that reason, I will not be supporting the current request amount,


Personally I see this proposal as one that does not align with the expectations set out by the Arbitrum DAO nor does it make sense to support when in consideration of the many long-standing Arbitrum Builders that have shown genuine commitment and advocacy.

Here are my core concerns

  • This grant requests 500k ARB however PancakeSwap have been deployed for a little under 2 months and therefore this request is not fitting with the Siren Grant category that PancakeSwap are applying to. Siren Grant stipulates 4 months deployment time on Arbitrum.

  • 50% of the requested grant will be use directly to incentivize core blue chip Liquidity Pools. This offers little benefit to the Arbitrum Ecosystem when there are equal and better trading venues for these pairs.

  • 50% of the requested grant is claimed for ‘high impact products’ that have yet to deploy onto Arbitrum and thus, the term high impact is not evident. Past performance is no guide to future success.

  • Matching Grant Committed is CAKE tokens emitted over an entire 12 months. This is well outside of the incentivization period and therefore is not a relevant commitment to make.

  • PancakeSwap are deploying to multiple chains, this raises questions around the genuine commitment towards Arbitrum. PancakeSwap deployed to Arbitrum, after Aptos, Ethereum, zkSync Era and Polygon.

  • Galxe Campaigns advertises as community growth levers are part of multi-chain first campaigns that are not Arbitrum focused.

PancakeSwap have a reputable brand, but there are many reputable brands and there are many passionate native builders on Arbitrum vying for incentives.

I will therefore not support this grant application based on the above.


Well, simply put, you are trying to fit in the criteria when you clearly don’t.

I’m sure a competent DEX like PancakeSwap will have a better chance on next rounds.

Nothing against it - and of course understand that you would still try it, but clearly PancakeSwap hasn’t ever been aligned with Arbitrum success, and it’s yet to be proven if that’s gonna change. Less than 1% of your total TVL is present on Arbitrum.

Best of luck regardless!

1 Like

As other mention i think it would be better to apply in the second cycle where you will be live for 2 months already and more data for volume and tvl as well.
I like PS and i hope you can get a grant on the next cycle, but now i think its not adecuate.

Hello @chefmaroon thank you for your application! Your submission meets all requirements to be considered for a snapshot vote.


Thank you for your feedback @meyaf320219 ! We very much value comments from active Arbitrum members such as yourself.

Here are some clarification points from us:

When the vote period ends (12 Oct), we would have been live for >2 months. We hope that the community can judge us on metrics beyond just our deployment duration – we’ve been around for more than 2 years, and believe we have demonstrated that we are a safe and responsible DEX.

As mentioned in our proposal, we intend to drive volume, TVL, and DAU to Arbitrum via (i) our capital efficient v3 DEX, (ii) sizable community reach, (iii) wide range of products, and (iv) our ability for further incentivization via CAKE in the long-term.

To ensure a thriving Arbitrum ecosystem, we believe that bringing in external capital and users is valuable – together, we can grow the ecosystem pie.

Performance wise, with just 1.5 months of deployment and $2.5M TVL, we have achieved $45M 30D cumulative volume. This is a strong start that we hope to build on as we expand our footprint on Arbitrum.


Thank you for the feedback @flindy! I think you have rightly brought up valid concerns that the Arbitrum community might have, and we are happy to address them.

The metrics listed out by @tnorm were recommendations for project teams to follow. One possible reason for the duration metric is to only reward projects that show high commitment to Arbitrum.

While we acknowledge we are new to the ecosystem, we are willing to tangibly demonstrate our commitment to Arbitrum via an unconditional grant matching of 156,000 CAKE over the next year. So far only less than half the projects have committed to grant matching of any sort, and we are one of the few that have a transparent and unconditional matching amount - we do think this helps to meaningfully demonstrate our commitment.

Another plausible reason why the duration metric was added is to ensure the applicant’s code is battle-tested - ours would be considered so given our extensive list of effective audits and long deployment history.

Besides market liquidity and depth, we believe that users – from retail ones to more sophisticated traders – are important aspects of any trading venue.

As stated in the proposal, we will actively cross-pollinate our user base with the Arbitrum ecosystem via our DEX – and we strongly believe that this offers meaningful benefits to the Arbitrum ecosystem.

We are happy to consider any other incentivization methods the community thinks would be more beneficial, or to even adjust the allocation % to the different categories mentioned in our proposal, if there is strong empirical evidence.

To clarify, 50% will be split between incentivizing liquidity for non-core pairs and incentivizing usage for high-impact products.

Our products’ performance can be found in our Dune Dashboards. Even if we were to discount our high-impact products completely, 50% of the requested grant will go towards non-core pairs, part of which will be used to attract our key partners from other chains to deploy their protocol and token on Arbitrum. I believe we are strategically positioned to do so with our network and track record.

The 1 year commitment from us overlaps with the incentivization period, so it is definitely relevant.

In fact, having this commitment tangibly demonstrates our intent to build on Arbitrum for the long-term, and not just for the duration of the grant period.

We think the future is multi-chain, with Arbitrum playing a key role in it. Hence, we are willing to make a long-term commitment to Arbitrum via our 1 year grant matching of 156k CAKE.

We also feel that chain usage isn’t exclusive, and having a heavily retail-focused DApp would positively augment the Arbitrum ecosystem.

1 Like

Thank you @whereismymind for taking the time to read and comment on our proposal! We see that you are actively participating in many other proposals too - definitely representative of the vibrant Arbitrum governance community.

With regards to the main point you brought up, we’d like to share our thoughts here:

Beyond what we mentioned in our reply to @flindy, we think being able to achieve $45M cumulative 30D volume within just 1.5 months of deployment and with just $2.5M TVL reveals a lot about the strength of PancakeSwap.

We feel a grant request of 500k ARB is fair for the results we have achieved thus far and for the commitment that we are willing to make to Arbitrum.

1 Like

I have nothing against Pancake, but it doesn’t feel right to see you apply a month after your Arbitrum deployment and ask for 500,000 ARB right off the bat. To be frank, it could easily be interpreted as very opportunistic timing, and doesn’t fit the requirements anyway.

Pancake is a top 15 DeFi protocol, second only to Uniswap in the DEX field. It generates 118m fees per year for an annualized revenue of 29m. I guess you have enough resources to survive for a few months and establish yourself without external help.

I’m sure Pancake can become a full part of the Arbitrum ecosystem if you are really committed to it. The deployment of Trader Joe and their success here has shown that the Arbitrum community is no sectarian, and will warmly welcome protocols from other ecosystems. There is no reason for you to not have a similar trajectory.

I think you should just wait for a few months so you can get a proper track record on the chain. Please remember that this program is a small short-term one, capped to 50m. The many native builders, small(er) protocols, and Arbitrum OGs that have supported the ecosystem for months and years should be the priority for this program.


Clearly Pancake is not focused on the Arbitrum ecosystem. Why do we give favor to someone who we know for sure will leave us when they no longer benefit?


Ofc, recommendations that are clear guidelines to follow unless you can clearly demonstrate you are achieving much for the ecosystem. Please use other proposals as context for those who are demonstrating clear commitment to the Arbitrum ecosystem.

I do not agree that this is a compelling commitment that you seem to champion. There are countless protocols that will spend considerably higher emissions over a 12 month horizon. Grant matching should be interpreted as grant matching over the grant period. Not standard emissions you plan to utilise on your mentioned pairs over an entire year (which are almost exclusively core pairs and no reference to Arbitrum builder pairs).

Disagree on this again - 156k CAKE emissions over a year is almost nothing. Camelot and Ramses will be emitting considerably higher. I could probably speculate that Sushi will spend more over a year.

I think your request based on the current track record on Arbitrum is too high and in addition, you are prioritising 50% of the grant towards core pairs which is also a very high ratio and adds next to no valuer to the Arbitrum ecosystem given the fact your product is not providing new value to the Arbitrum ecosystem and community.


Alex, founder of Wombat Exchange, here! I just wanted to put in my two cents. I went through the entire thread of the community’s positives and negatives in the comment section. I’ve always been a no-bs, direct person, so I’ll tell it like it is.

Short reply: I think the community of Arbitrum will benefit significantly from a team like PancakeSwap doing well on Arbitrum.

Long reply: I agree that the comments are right about the duration of Pancake Swap being on arbitrum for a short while, but they have done excellent volume and are worthy of being supported by the Arbitrum ecosystem further. I see comments about their brand name, but the grants should allocate the amount for small builders; however, I am pretty indifferent to this because I think a successful project has many qualities that the PCS team represents.

As a founder of a unique AMM algorithm, I tend not to like to support the majority of projects that fork others without added innovation, which is why it’s tough for many DEXs to win my approval because I feel that they take the easy way out. The reality is that AMM algorithms and design are complex, and it’s hard to reinvent the wheel. The only DEXs that win my respect, even though they forked Uniswap’s V3, are TraderJoe and my beloved PancakeSwap.

So you may say, “Ok Alex, that’s a bit hypocritical, given your stance, constant dislike, and open mic about people forking your algorithm without your permission.” – Actually, I don’t have an issue with people forking my algorithm AFTER the BUSL expires – I am 100% with expanding DeFi; just give me some time to enjoy what I invented – after that, I’m all for supporting people who take the Wombat algo to the next level – hell, I’ll even be your advisor! And this is why I think PancakeSwap is legit – they waited until UniV3 expired before they implemented it. This was not only a classy move for such a considerable protocol, but they respected builders and developers alike. It is something to be respected and admired. 100% support teams that build correctly; that’s the environment you want to create in Arbitrum.

I love Arbitrum because I love DeFi, and the team here made it clear that DeFi is something they will always focus on because it is the foundational aspect of crypto. I love PancakeSwap because the team represents what you want builders to be like.

Another discussion is whether you want to support such a brand name over another – this is a gated mentality, and I detest it. All these other big names have also deployed on Arbtirum, so how do you measure how much they “care” about the Arbitrum ecosystem compared to PCS? Some of the big names have deployed on over 10+ chains. With all due respect, I think that’s bias, and the fundamental ethos of crypto is not to have this bias and to have genuine builders who want to improve the market.

The PCS team has made PancakeSwap more than a swap place. They have multiple features that add value to the ecosystem — Trading Competitions, Launchpads, Prediction Markets, Perp Markets, Games, and NFTs. You always want builders who have weathered crypto storms; that’s them. You want builders who stick to their brand and not just have a new protocol and deploy a new token; that’s them. You want builders that have gone through being shit on, being abused by the community, and still shipping things out; that’s also them.


Appreciate your feedback @Perl! Most of what you said were echoed by previous commenters and are indeed valid points. Here’s our perspective on it:

We would have deployed for >2 months by the end of the voting period, so we do meet the recommendations for a Beacon Grant.

Notably, we’ve asked for an amount within the Siren Grant category. We feel our strong early performance, intention to commit to Arbitrum for the long run, and ability to attract protocols to the ecosystem help make this a much more compelling ask.

We understand the perspective that native builders should get the lion’s share of the incentive program, though this isn’t dichotomous with supporting a competent, innovative, and committed player to the ecosystem too!

Regardless, we see Arbitrum as a key piece of our multichain future, and will devote resources to expand our footprint here, just as we have already done so since August.

1 Like

As mentioned, we are committed to the Arbitrum ecosystem and are willing to match ~43% of our grant amount over the next year, with our incentivisation program and product development extending well beyond the grant period.

1 Like

Yes, my bad, having reviewed the actual terms it seems you would actually meet the criteria.

I definetely like PancakeSwap but it hasn’t really proven any aligned commitment to Arbitrum. Its too early to tell. I can’t do anything about the grant terms though – so kinda understand you submitted your proposal.


At a high level, we very much appreciate the perspectives and points you make – having a healthy debate is key to making sure incentives are spent effectively for the benefit of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Our reply to @Perl should cover our thoughts on this point, though if there are additional points you feel we should address please do let us know.

Not only are we matching the grant during the grant period (~13.5% of grant amount), we are committed to extending it to cover the total duration of a year. If you prefer to only focus on the grant period, please feel free to do so; however, our 1 year commitment still stands.

Do note also that 156k is our baseline amount - we will look to increase it as we grow on Arbitrum, especially after the incentivization period to prevent TVL from leaving the ecosystem.

Our incentivized Farm pairs are always changing - right now our Farms skew towards core pairs since that was our go-to market strategy. We have introduced Farms for Level Finance and Magpie and will continue to do so for other projects old and new to Arbitrum.

We felt that 50% was a good balance - it allows sufficient incentivization of core pairs that are heavily used and essential for DeFi legos, while still adequately supporting non-core pairs (some of whom will be invited by us to deploy on Arbitrum).

I saw that you agreed with Camelot’s proposal which earmarks 40% to core pairs (ARB/ETH/USDT/USDC pools), which is not too different from our split.

1 Like

I feel like you are trying to dismiss my point here

There are many DEXs building on Arbitrum that will be emitting tokens over 12 months, if they were to include a ‘grant matching 12 month period’ it would be significantly higher compared to what PancakeSwap will commit.

This can be perceived as you will also not increase emissions if you see no growth on Arbitrum and equally, you may look to reduce presence if that aligns with your multi-chain first approach.

This is not a good balance or value return to Arbitrum.

There are many DEXs using Uniswapv3 or Algebra or even novel AMMs. Why should the Arbitrum DAO provide incentives for another Uniswapv3 fork? There is no value return to incentivize core pairs for a new to Arbitrum DEX. It would be better spent direclty on Uniswapv3, SushiSwap with their v3 fork, even Camelot, Ramses, TraderJoe or KyberSwap. All of these DEXs have been committed to Arbitrum for far longer.

Camelot are native, they champion a full scope of almost every token on the chain. Everything they do is for Arbitrum and it is a core trading hub for Arbitrum and it should have incentives focused on core pairs, because of those facts. It is still less proportionally relative to what you are asking for as well.

Not sure why this is really relevant, this isnt a pity party for PancakeSwap. Every proposal should be critically evaluated with its products involved analysed to see if there is actual value return to the Arbitrum Ecosystem.

Arbitrum has a diverse offering of DEXs that innovate or build:

Unique offerings: Uniswapv3 + v4, Shell Protocol, TraderJoe’s Liquidity Book, KyberSwap Elastic, Balancer
Solidly Forks/Alterations: Ramses, Camelot
Algebra Integrations: ZyberSwap, Camelot
Uniswapv3 Forks: SushiSwap, PancakeSwap, Ramses

Unsure why the core product of PancakeSwap should be granted ARB incentives that are above the guideline framework when the reality is, it is a sub-par product relative to the many native DEXs or innovative offerings.

They have indeed built a great platform and self-contained ecosystem but Arbitrum should champion based on multiple values being upheld, i do not believe PancakeSwap are evidently committed to Arbitrum first and certainly in comparison to the many DEX applications that can be funded through this STIP.


Gamma is currently in an integration with PancakeSwap. They have proven to be a reliable, friendly, and fair partner. We know firsthand, that they are excited to build on the Arbitrum network. Although they have recently deployed on Arbitrum, they are a popular DEX, have a modest ask, and are offering their own incentives on top. We hope that the delegates support this proposal!