Pendle's update this time is not a good news, it's an evolution driven by data I have always believed that VE cannot sustain this volume, and the mode will definitely change. Yesterday's announcement landed: Pendle officially abandoned vePENDLE and switched to sPENDLE. It just confirmed my expectation ✅ Why am I inferring like this? If you can finish reading the following paragraph, you can rely on data to determine whether the project is evolving or extending its lifespan in the future. one ️⃣ Let's first look at a fact that many people overlook: Pendle is no longer an early protocol From the financial data of TokenTerminal, Pendle has entered a completely different stage in 2025: Annual agreement revenue>$37M Multiple monthly fees/revenue ranging from $3 to $4M Long term first tier market share in the Asset Management track What does this mean? Pendle has entered the stage of "real cash flow driven" from "emissions for growth". And the ve model is essentially designed for early emission scheduling and governance defense. two ️⃣ The problem is that the protocol scale has increased, but the token efficiency is starting to noticeably fall behind Continue to check the token indicators of TokenTerminal: Circulation turnover is long-term at 10-20% Fully Dilated Turnover Only 6-8% Compared to mature cash flow agreements in the same track, it is significantly lower Pendle's products and revenue are running at high speed, but PENDLE itself has been "suppressed" by long-term lock-in and governance games. VePendle's "lock up for up to 2 years, non withdrawable period" has become the most typical structural problem in the middle and later stages: punishing liquidity, ultimately punishing scale. This is not 'lock up=bad', but rather: when the agreement enters the middle and later stages, incremental users/funds are unwilling to pay the cost of lock up, resulting in a retention gap. three ️⃣ Cohort data directly exposes the ceiling of vePENDLE What truly convinced me that 'models must be changed' was user retention data. Pendle's MAU Cohort displays: New users from Month 0 to Month 1 have high retention rates (30-40%+) But Month 2/3/4 quickly dropped to around 10% Users come quickly, but it's difficult to stay What does this mean? Pendle's problem is not with the product, nor with the demand And the friction in the participation method itself is too high For the vast majority of normal users, vePENDLE means: Long lock up time Complex decision-making The profit path is not intuitive Users are not disapproving of Pendle, but rather unwilling to pay "excessive liquidity penalties" for their participation. four ️⃣ Even more dangerous: ve model begins to 'eat its own people' Returning to the financial statements: Continuous income growth But token incentives still need to be maintained at a high level Profit does not increase linearly with scale This is a very clear signal in terms of data: The agreement is already profitable But they are still using 'early emission tools' to maintain participation. When a model starts to slow down the transmission efficiency of "scale → profit → value return", it is no longer a moat, but a source of internal friction. Data source: https://(tokenterminal. com)/explorer/projects/pending five ️⃣ So if you look at sPENDLE again, you will find that it was not designed for brainstorming Almost every change made by sPENDLE can be found in the corresponding problem in the data: 14 day unlock/5% instant exit → hedge against rapid loss of stocks (vePENDLE period: maximum 2-year lock up, cannot exit midway) 80% of the agreement revenue is repurchased and distributed → "Real use" is directly mapped to token value (source of revenue during the vePENDLE period: fees+emissions+Boost) Algorithmic emissions reduction, overall emission reduction of~30% → reduce dependence on inflation to drive growth Governance is only activated at critical moments → significantly reducing daily participation friction (during the vePENDLE period, the governance model was to vote weekly to determine the direction of emissions) This is not 'more friendly', but a data structure that is more in line with the current size. six ️⃣ vePENDLE Loyalty Boost， Essentially, it is a 'soft landing' Many people are worried that old users will be backstabbed, but the mechanism is actually handled very restrained: VePENDLE → virtual sPENDLE (up to 4x) Weight linearly decays with the remaining lock period It only affects the weight of returns and does not affect the principal. This is a migration of path dependence without clearing historical contributions. seven ️⃣ What should users do this time from vePENDLE to sPENDLE? (Additional) First, let me address a practical issue: sPENDLE is not a "high APY acquisition tool" in the short term Before discussing "what users should do", it is necessary to clarify a point that is easily misunderstood: SPENDLE was deliberately not a strong Token Sink in the early stages of its launch. According to the community's calculation of the transition period from vePENDLE to sPENDLE: Currently, approximately 37.6% of the circulating supply is locked in vePENDLE warehouses The average remaining lock up period is about 1.54 years The average multiplier converted to sPENDLE is approximately 3.31x What does this mean? In the early stages of sPENDLE's launch, the "effective weight" of old vePENDLE holders was significantly amplified. Under different income assumptions, a very typical transitional structure has emerged: New sPENDLE pledger: Annual return of approximately 5% -7% Old vePENDLE (with multiplier): Equivalent annualization can reach 16% -24%, and linearly decay with time This is not a design error, but a deliberately chosen migration path: Pendle chooses to first smoothly release the historical lock structure, Instead of using short-term high APY to "forcefully attract new funds" and create new path dependencies. let me put it another way: The true appeal of sPENDLE will not come from the first day, but from the continuous expansion of protocol revenue. This step is actually more important than 'understanding logic'. The significance of sPENDLE lies not in whether you recognize it or not, but in where you stand. I will explain it in three categories: (1) If you are a regular user who has not yet participated in Pendle For you, the essence of this update is that Pendle's participation threshold is truly "open to ordinary users" for the first time. The previous participation logic of vePENDLE was to lock for 1-2 years, understand complex voting, and bear extremely high opportunity costs. After sPENDLE: unlocked in 14 days, the profits come directly from the protocol cash flow, without the need to participate in complex games. Conclusion: If you previously understood Pendle but never took action, then sPENDLE is the window of participation that you should truly start researching. (2) If you are a long-term vePENDLE holder This group of people is most prone to emotions, but their logic is actually very clear. There are only three things you need to care about: Your vePENDLE will be mapped 1:1 to virtual sPENDLE Weight: Up to 4x bonus based on remaining lock period The bonus will decay linearly over time, but the principal will not be affected Core judgment: This is not a 'backstab', but a migration to avoid being trapped by the old model. If Pendle does not change the model, vePENDLE will gradually be marginalized in the middle and later stages. (3) If you are someone who only wants to make profits and does not want to engage in deep gaming Then you need to realize one thing: Pendle is shifting from "those who can vote earn the most" to "real participant sharing protocol growth". This means that there is no longer a need to monitor voting on a weekly basis, no longer a need to participate in the Bribe/Gauge game, and the profit logic will become increasingly closer to 'cash flow assets'. For this type of user, sPENDLE is essentially a tool that turns Pendles into assets that can be held, rather than just a tool suitable for experts. eight ️⃣ One sentence conclusion (for those who truly understand the data) VePENDLE addresses Pendle's' early survival problem ', while sPENDLE addresses Pendle's' mid to late expansion problem'. That is to say, vePENDLE is suitable for screening believers; SPENDLE is suitable for carrying large-scale capital. From the data perspective, Pendle has already won PMF, and continuing to cling to vePENDLE is the real risk. By understanding this step, you won't have to worry about whether it's a good thing or not, because the real question is only one: do you want to stand outside a growing agreement or after its structural adjustment is completed? Speaking of which, the success of sPENDLE depends not on the APY one month after its launch, but on one year later. When multiplier disappears, is the protocol revenue sufficient to independently support the token value.