Alright, this time I’ll build you a truly trackable over the long term “value capture model” for UNI / CAKE.
And let me correct an important statement in my previous message:
My previous claim that “UNI value capture is more direct than CAKE” was too absolute.
PancakeSwap now also has a clear protocol revenue → CAKE buyback/burn mechanism. For example, the AMM allocates a fixed percentage for CAKE repurchase and destruction; V3, Infinity, Prediction, and others also each have corresponding buyback/burn paths.
The real difference is actually this:
For every $1 of business revenue generated by the two, how much ultimately gets captured as token value—and how many times of valuation the market is willing to assign to that token value capture.
First, put the latest data on the table
Using the latest DeFiLlama data I can capture—not guessing from price charts.
Metric
UNI
CAKE
30D DEX transaction volume
$91.14B
$28.64B
30D Protocol Revenue
$15.89M
$7.56M
30D Token/Holders Revenue
$15.89M
$5.12M
Market cap
$5.97B
$886.5M
Annualized Token Capture
$190.7M
$61.4M
Annualized Capture / Market Cap
3.20%
6.93%
UNI data shows that over the past 30 days, Uniswap DEX had about $91.1B in trading, Holders Revenue of about $15.89M, with Robinhood Chain contributing about $9.41M.
CAKE over the past 30 days had about $28.64B in DEX trades. Protocol Revenue is $7.56M, while Holders Revenue directly attributable to token holders/buyback mechanisms is $5.12M.
Second, a very interesting result appears here
You might be surprised:
CAKE’s “value capture rate” is actually higher than UNI’s.
Calculation:
UNI
$15.89M × 12 ÷ $5.97B
≈ 3.20%/year
CAKE
$5.12M × 12 ÷ $886.5M
≈ 6.93%/year
That is to say:
Using the current 30-day data for static annualization, CAKE’s token value capture corresponding to its current market cap is about 2.17× UNI’s.
This is extremely key.
So:
❌ Cannot be explained as “UNI has strong value capture, CAKE has weak value capture”.
In fact, the data now is:
CAKE has higher value capture for the same unit market cap.
Third, why do you see UNI at 9.26 and CAKE at 2.6?
Now we’re in the truly interesting part.
Because the market gives them:
Different valuation multiples.
Divide market cap by annualized value capture:
UNI
$5.97B ÷ $190.7M
≈ 31.3×
CAKE
$886.5M ÷ $61.4M
≈ 14.4×
That is to say:
The market’s valuation of UNI’s value capture is about 2.17× CAKE’s.
This is what you’ve seen recently:
UNI has risen so sharply
How is CAKE still stuck around 2.6
The core.
Four, I simplify this model into one sentence
UNI:
Large business scale × high value capture × high valuation multiple from the market
↓
$5.97B
CAKE:
Smaller business scale × higher value capture per unit market cap × lower valuation multiple from the market
↓
$0.89B
So CAKE now is not:
“The fundamentals are much worse than UNI.”
Rather, it’s more like:
For now, the market is not willing to give CAKE and UNI the same valuation multiple.
That’s a huge difference.
Five, let’s do another especially important metric
We have:
30D Token Value Capture ÷ 30D DEX Volume
Calculated out.
UNI
$15.89M ÷ $91.14B
≈ 0.01744%
That is to say:
For every $1B DEX trading volume, it roughly forms $174,000 UNI value capture
CAKE
$5.12M ÷ $28.64B
≈ 0.01788%
That is to say:
For every $1B DEX trading volume, it roughly forms $179,000 CAKE value capture
Six, I think this result is the most important thing today
You see:
For every $1B DEX transactions
UNI
CAKE
Token value capture
$174K
$179K
It’s almost the same!
This means:
For the two economic models currently, the conversion efficiency from “trading volume → token value” is actually not as different as you might imagine.
So you can’t just say:
UNI’s economic model is an era ahead of CAKE’s.
No.
The real difference is:
Scale + growth expectations + market valuation multiple
Seven, then you’ll understand why UNI has been so strong lately
Now:
UNI
30D trading volume:
$91B
Of which:
Robinhood Chain $44.8B
Ethereum:
$23.95B
Base case:
$7.30B
And Uniswap’s 30D Holders Revenue has already reached:
$15.89M
Of which Robinhood Chain contributes:
$9.41M
That is to say:
A new market for Robinhood Chain—it’s now become the largest source of UNI value capture.
This is a very important reason the market is willing to give UNI a high multiple.
Eight, where is CAKE’s problem?
CAKE’s business is not small at all:
30D:
$28.64B DEX volume
Protocol Revenue:
$7.56M
Holders Revenue:
$5.12M
And PancakeSwap’s CAKE buyback/burn mechanism covers:
AMM
V3
Infinity
Prediction
Lottery
StableSwap, etc.
For example, official data shows:
AMM: 0.0575% used for CAKE buyback/burn
V3: different fee tiers have different buyback proportions
Infinity: 50% of revenue used for buyback/burn
Prediction: all revenue used for CAKE buyback/burn
Lottery: 20% used for buyback/burn.
So:
CAKE isn’t “without value capture.”
In contrast, its current unit market-cap value capture rate is very high.
Nine, CAKE has another particularly great data point
In August:
Burn: 2.746M CAKE
Mint: 674K
Net reduction: 2.072M CAKE
Net deflation for 36 straight months
Cumulative net reduction is about 59.7M CAKE.
If the speed stays exactly like in August:
2.072M × 12
≈ 24.86M CAKE/year
Based on the ~ $2.6 you’re seeing now:
≈ $64.6M/year net supply reduction corresponds to this value
That’s equivalent to about 318.9M circulating CAKE’s:
7.5%/year net supply contraction
Of course this can’t be treated as a forecast, because trading volume, emissions, and burn will all change.
But it tells you:
CAKE’s “deflation engine” is indeed very strong right now.
Ten, so why does the market still give CAKE 14× while UNI gets 31×?
I think it mainly comes down to the following things.
① Scale
UNI:
$91B / 30D
CAKE:
$28.6B / 30D
UNI is about 3.18× trading volume.
② Multi-chain structure
UNI’s value capture is clearly becoming multi-chain now:
Ethereum
Base
Arbitrum
BSC
Polygon
Robinhood Chain
……
And also, in September the governance proposal continues to expand the protocol fee/UNI burn framework to Arbitrum (Arc). Uniswap’s official statement is explicit: protocol fees have already been extended to 11 chains beyond Ethereum, with fees entering TokenJar, and searchers receive UNI by burning it.
CAKE is highly dependent on:
BSC
Currently PancakeSwap is about:
96.7% of TVL on BSC
And in the 30D revenue, about:
$7.33M / $7.56M comes from BSC
That’s about 97%.
This difference is huge.
Eleven, so I’m going to give you two “valuation switches”
From now on, don’t ask:
Is CAKE cheaper than UNI?
Just ask:
Switch A: value capture
CAKE:
Currently about 6.9%
UNI:
Currently about 3.2%
→ CAKE wins
Switch B: how many multiples the market is willing to give
UNI:
About 31×
CAKE:
About 14×
→ UNI has a clear valuation premium
Twelve, now let’s build the price model you care about most
Here I approximate using the current circulating supply:
UNI ≈ 620M
CAKE ≈ 319M
If the market maintains the current valuation logic:
UNI
UNI price
Corresponding market cap
$15
$9.3B
$20
$12.4B
$30
$18.6B
$50
$31.0B
CAKE
CAKE price
Corresponding market cap
$5
$1.60B
$10
$3.19B
$20
$6.38B
$30
$9.57B
Then you’ll find something very interesting here:
CAKE $5
Only needs to rise from about $0.89B now:
→ $1.6B
That’s less than 2× market cap difference.
Whereas:
UNI $20
Need:
$6B → $12.4B
About double.
Thirteen, further put “trading volume” into the model
Assuming later:
For every $1B DEX volume ≈ $175K token value capture
This efficiency stays unchanged.
So:
CAKE $5
If the market still gives CAKE its current 6.9% value capture rate:
Needs annualized value capture of about:
$110.5M
Corresponding to the 30D average:
$9.21M
Based on the current ~ $179K / $1B volume:
Need:
About $51.5B / month DEX volume
Now it is:
$28.6B
That is to say:
CAKE from $2.6 to $5. If the valuation multiple doesn’t expand, relying only on business growth, you’d probably need to push monthly transactions from 28.6B to around 50B.
This actually isn’t wildly unrealistic.
Fourteen, what about CAKE at $10?
Need:
$3.19B market cap
Based on the current value capture rate:
Annualized Token Capture:
~$221M
Corresponding to monthly:
~$18.4M
Based on current efficiency:
Need:
About $103B/month DEX transaction volume
So currently:
About 3.6×
Fifteen, what about UNI at $20?
UNI’s current value capture rate is about 3.2%.
If the market keeps this valuation structure:
$12.4B market cap
Need:
~$396M/year value capture
Corresponding to:
~$33M/month
Based on about $174K per $1B currently:
Need:
About $190B/month DEX volume
Now about:
$91B
About what’s needed:
2.1×
Sixteen, so put the model together and you’ll get this table
Target
Required market cap
Assuming the valuation multiple stays the same
Needed monthly DEX volume
CAKE $5
$1.60B
6.9% capture
~$52B
CAKE $10
$3.19B
6.9% capture
~$103B
CAKE $20
$6.38B
6.9% capture
~$206B
UNI $15
$9.30B
3.2% capture
~$142B
UNI $20
$12.4B
3.2% capture
~$190B
UNI $30
$18.6B
3.2% capture
~$285B
UNI $50
$31.0B
3.2% capture
~$474B
Note: This is a model, not a price prediction.
It means:
Assuming the current efficiency of “trading volume → token value capture” and the valuation multiple the market assigns to the token both stay unchanged, how large does the business scale need to be to support the corresponding market cap?
Seventeen, but this is exactly where CAKE’s biggest opportunity lies
Now you should understand why I’m unwilling to simply say:
“UNI is better than CAKE.”
Because the data tells us a more complicated truth:
CAKE:
A high value capture rate
↓
Low market valuation multiple
UNI:
The value capture rate is a bit lower
↓
Market valuation multiple is high
In other words:
CAKE now is more like “low valuation + capturing a lot of current cash flow”
And:
UNI is more like “overvalued + high growth expectations”
These two investment logics are completely different.
Eighteen, and since you see CAKE at 2.6, what you should really focus on isn’t the price
From now on, every week you give me a sheet of data—I only need to look at these 6 numbers:
UNI
30D DEX Volume
30D Holders Revenue
UNI market cap
Robinhood Chain Volume
UNI Burn
Holders Revenue / Market Cap
CAKE
30D DEX Volume
30D Holders Revenue
CAKE market cap
BSC share
CAKE Net Deflation
Holders Revenue / Market Cap
Nineteen, I’ll set you up with a “value capture dashboard”
From now on you won’t even need to look at candlestick charts:
🟢 UNI is the most important
30D Volume ↑
●
Holders Revenue ↑
●
Robinhood/RWA Volume ↑
●
UNI Burn ↑
→ Value capture is enhanced.
🟢 CAKE is the most important
30D Volume ↑
●
Holders Revenue ↑
●
Net Deflation keeps going
●
The share of revenue outside BSC is rising
→ CAKE’s valuation logic starts improving.
Twenty, and with the current data, I would summarize it like this
UNI:
The business scale is clearly larger, value capture is expanding rapidly—especially since Robinhood Chain brings a new revenue stream. The market has started to be willing to give higher valuation multiples to this kind of growth.
CAKE:
It’s not a matter of value capture being lower. Instead, based on the current market cap, CAKE’s 30D Holders Revenue / market cap is about 2.2× UNI’s, and it’s already been net deflationary for 36 straight months. The issue is that the business is smaller, and revenue is highly concentrated in BSC. The market currently only values it at about 14× annualized value capture, whereas UNI is about 31×.
So when you see “UNI 9.26, CAKE 2.6”, it’s essentially not a price difference between two coins.
But instead:
The market is willing to give UNI a higher “future value capture multiple”.
This is exactly what we should verify next.
If in the future CAKE’s 30D trading volume goes from 28.6B → 50B → 100B, and the value capture rate stays the same—while BSC’s dependency declines—could CAKE’s valuation multiple move from 14× back up to 20×, 25×, or even higher?
This is far more useful than just asking “can CAKE reach $5?”
And if UNI’s Robinhood Chain value capture continues at this current pace, can UNI’s current 31× valuation multiple keep expanding? That’s another main thread.