Election of Jonathan Howard as Head Chef

This is my last post specifically addressing this topic as this is getting far removed from Jon’s candidacy.

This is a picture of you showing not only did you already make the most money within the Samurai org, you then had the largest jump in base salary. Of course it wasn’t agreed to, this was less than 60 days after your last deal. The funny part about this was I told you if you wanted it, go direct to the community and make a forum post. Of course that didn’t happen if you genuinely believed it to be worth it you would’ve gone ahead and done a Samurai v2.01, it was taking advantage of the situation.
You wanted to start posting the screenshots, here lets have it:

It’s good to see an update. I am sure the community will be very enthusiastic that it took 5 months & $240K for Discord server checks, a blog, merch designs, & Samurai NFT’s.

It is my opinion that you and specifically you enjoy being left unchecked & as such see this as an opportunity to throw mud at a very sensible candidate knowing if you blow a bit of smoke, do some rah rah, odds are Sushi continues leaderless & you’re able to continue spending time on things like making Samurai NFT’s, & Samurai merch designs & remain unchecked. With no Head Chef, Sushi community gets money spent, investment, in blogging…but wait the traffic is for some reason going to a https://www.samurais.io/ instead of Sushi.com what am I missing?

Per leadership process: When I asked the team to give me specific folks to reach out to not even contact info, just names and I would do the chasing and do outbound, not a single lead or candidate sent my way from you. Now all of a sudden, a competent head chef is sourced and there’s questions of the process?

Anyway, this is my last point about this. I’ve stated my opinion on the matter as you have yours. You’re welcome to get the last word in but discussion should be back to the Chef candidate & the deal.

Including 24-hour round support, community management, product help, governance process, and internal proposal management for 5 folks full time. Again missing out purposefully on the products that are being tested :wink: None of us are charging 40h per week working at several places though fyi

The majority of us have been vocal about having the right leader. We all love what Maki has done for Sushi. If you read my OP you’ll see what really is the problem.

Why do you keep editing lol? This is a decentralized project. Separate UI’s is not an issue lol. Personally, I feel the community identifies Samurais with other community champions because there is a brand value here.


Neil you play hard and fast with the facts and are trying to do a cuttlefish manoeuvre on Pegbit because he’s not acting like a nodding dog yes man.

Your narrative only ever portrays you as a god like figure.

I believe you made two appointments this week and even promoted a samurai as one of ‘your appointments’ so you must not think too poorly of how they perform.

The samurai have proven themselves invaluable and you were their biggest fan. Most long-standing sushi community members are in no doubt about that. Although the de ja vu makes it hard to tell which round of takeover it is at this stage. Is it a frog, is it a vc……


You are absolutely right, Nick. And the truth is that the compensation package for a future Head Chef should have been discussed on the forum before even starting accept applications. At least some general limits should have gone through a temperature check. Thus compensate committee would know what they can negotiate for and there would not be surprises for the community and dramas like the current ones.


If you really think that Samurais (or any other team members) are not doing their job (according to you) why did not bring this up in front of the community?!? Is this not your duty as a member of the compensate committee elected by the community?

So you are saying that you were willing to close your eyes about team members not doing their job (according to you) and you brought this up only because of the critics you received?

Let assume that you are right (though you are not, as at any time there were enough funds in Sushiswap Treasury to cover these expenses. If the problem was made known I am sure there could be and other solutions). My questions is: Why are you still paying for these services (and after that reimbursed from the Ops wallet) many months after Frog nation drama? Are we still in risk of going “offline”? There are some solutions which allow DAOs to pay for their real world expenses without having bank account. One of the projects offering such solutions even reached out to Sushiswap?
Couple of times I point to you that simple announcements to keep community informed what is going on and what is suppose to be done will save us a lot of problems. So many forum members sharing that they feel most of what is going on in Sushi is behind the curtain (and that they do not have info to make decision on a vote) proves that I am right.
It is obviously that you want this protocol to be run purely as corporation. You do not want to explain your motifs and actions in front of the people, as you think that is the right way towards success. Fine - maybe this will make sushiswap 10 x Uniswap and Balancer combined together - but in that case please put a proposal on Snapshot and let it done once and for all.
P.S. No matter what, Sushiswap can go offline only if all the chains it is deployed on go offline. Token may go to 0, Team may quit, UI may be gone, but the protocol will be there and most of its functions will be completely operational… Chef Nomi managed to bring it to life without using a single paid service (afaik).


350,000 SUSHI is solely at the discretion if the compensation committee, of which Jon will be 1 of the 3 members and Neil (his friend) is the other.

Also, whats the point of the 350k SUSHI layered on top of the price-triggered incentive compensation? This is redundant. If products are being shipped and the platform revenues are increasing, then the price compenstion will be triggered. There is no need for the 350k SUSHI “discretionary” bonus on top of that. Do away with that part

Also not sure why we are using price triggered rather than platform revenue triggered or some relative outperformance vs a DEFI Index like the the Coindesk Defi Select Index (CoinDesk DeFi Select Index (DFX)). Basically if this guy bides his time over the next couple years and doesnt get fired he will get paid in the next bull cycle regardless.


After reading through recent discussions - this is exactly what im talking about

Nope, all comp committee work that I do is volunteer work done for free for Sushi.

From what I understand, you have been billing us close to 40 hours a week with the agreed comp rate by checking in with Jiro a few moments ago.

Did you write this proposal @Neiltbe? It reads likes intentionally obfuscated word salad like your replies. “All comp committee work I do is volunteer”…buttt I’m paid for other things by individuals who stand the benefit from this proposal and sneaked in a clause to lower performance targets.

Team members’ current price-based bonuses from the bull market are so high they don’t carry much weight in motivating. They’ll be lowered to these same price tiers and ratios to adjust for bear market downturn.

Let me get this straight then. Leadership search committee comprised on Matthew, Jiro, Arca(?), and yourself. Matthew, Jiro, and you stand or currently benefit from non-DAO salary/hourly payouts and stand to gain even more from lowering performance bonuses to allow for a $3 trigger (10 day movement) down from $12. You personally knew and introduced Jonathan Howard?

How much more backdoor does this need to get?

The very fact you haven’t touched on this incredible clause just completely diminishes your credibility, despite your paragraphs.


Can we discuss how this guy made a couple celebrity nft projects and is pretending like that experience translates at all into running what is highly technical defi project.

I understand it may not be out of the ordinary for a genuinely qualified candidate to get a package like in this proposal. But you are not that candidate. You simply do not have the track record to demand salaries this high. Being able to network with celebrities is not similar to running a defi protocol. And no, a cryptic tweet where he says he found a 7 figure vulnerability does not prove anything.

Sushi is getting rinsed by the people in the charge. If this proposal goes through I will consider this the final nail in sushi’s coffin because it gives up any ability to pivot away from this plan without completely rinsing the protocol’s funds, getting all the higher ups rich in the process regardless of which way the token goes. Shame on everyone involved in this proposal.


I know you are aware of this, as you were involved in the 2.0 proposal and I discussed such an exact point with you.
That our roles and responsibilities over that period had severely shifted as a result of the work that needed to be done in the moment. That it could be used to criticise, but that any one with context could back Sams value.
Am sure you can find someone to disagree, but on the main that has rung true.

We continue to maintain 24 hr support, have rescued funds exceeding our wages, and as you say have a mandate to fulfill yet still take on endless unagreed upon extras.
(That may have to stop now, if one wishes to measure of our performance on such petty terms.)

Sams are still cited as one of the few arms of Sushi to have retained integrity throughout last years clown show, and I would think twice before feeling any one an easy target.

This thread definitely should not be focused on personal attacks, by either one of you.
So let’s focus on the topic at hand.

I have zero interest in public mud slinging, but I do have absolute faith in Sushi, and those price targets are a joke.
Market doesn’t make it that easy even on a short seller, we could go to zero and still hit $3 or $5 before reversal. 200 day isn’t a target it’s an exit.

1 love


Thanks for your response @jhoward

I have spent 6+ years looking at compensation figures for traditional orgs and the last couple of years gathering data on web3 compensation. I have yet to see such a figure for an organization of Sushi’s size and scope. I would love to have folks that determined this offer (Comp Committee) to share the rationale or benchmark source, as you would otherwise be encouraged to do so if you were a publicly-traded organization (this is good governance, not bike shedding).

Thank you for confirming that the grants are not reoccurring. Your proposed total compensation is about $800K salary + $175K annualized sign on bonus + $300K annualized time-vested sushi + $325K est. annualized price-vested Sushi** = ~$1.6M annualized per year

*** I understand that there is no inherent value to you until the price reaches a certain point. However, from a comp perspective, we need to value this grant today (just like you would with a stock option). For simplicity, I assumed that the $7 goal is target (650K Sushi) and anything earned above that is stretch. I valued the 650K sushi at $2 (annualized over 4) and excluded the stretch grant.*

We have not done the detailed benchmarking support work, but just by eye-balling the total annualized comp figure, the magnitude does not raise any red flags.

We do think however that the design of compensation should be tweaked. For example, half of annualized total pay is in cash/stables via the salary. That is a lot for a CEO and we would question whether you are aligned with tokenholders. We would consider taking a portion of the salary and adding it to the guaranteed token grant.

Let’s also take a step back to determine what the purpose of these token grants are trying to accomplish. In our eyes, it is (1) attraction via upside potential, (2) long-term retention, and (3) motivation. Granting at these prices accomplishes (1), so lets set that aside. In terms of retention, monthly vesting on the guaranteed grant does not satisfy long-term retention. The reason why monthly vesting is prevalent in web3 and for tech companies, is because more tokens/equity are used in lieu of cash, which is used to fuel growth. The proposed cash is already high, so monthly vesting is unnecessary and the community should encourage longer-term vesting to ensure alignment with the overall strategy going forward.

In terms of motivation, you are being brought in to turn Sushi around. I personally don’t believe a $11 price over a four year period is a stretch target. This can be achieved in one-two years if bull market conditions are present. There is also no vesting period once they are earned so it ironically creates retention and motivation risk once they are achieved. Also, what if market conditions get worse? Are we going to just continually revise targets?

I would be comfortable with this grant if you attached time-based vesting provisions to it. For example, you have to achieve the hurdle AND time-based service conditions. I would also be comfortable with the current approach if you increase price hurdles to something more stretch over a four year period. Finally, we can focus on other goals (like TVL), rather than price hurdles. That way you won’t get credit for riding the correlation wave caused by the impending (and hopefully successful) merge.


Such a lovely CV, and yet the impact is projected not to exceed 11$ per sushi, starting at 3$?! Only one must be true, then.

“Sushi should be lucky to have such candidate to even consider”… oh wow. Nice wording. Says a lot.

So Howard is a consensus candidate within current clique. Which means he won’t do anything that go against what the clique has been already doing. So why do we even need him? To spend the treasury faster?

That severance package is obscene. It will be the biggest motivator to get fired early. I’m sure the chummy comp committee will find a way to do so, without triggering void close.

We as a community of misfortunate minority bagholders should take away proposed bonus strikes as a direct indication of exit strategy - there’s no point to value a token above what the rulers themselves value it. Sorry if you got to buy above $11. :sweat_smile:

Time to drop the ‘community’ centric charade. Temp checks get overrun with new users, governance is overrurn with VC bags. Just make a vote to get direct discretionary powers and be done with it. It’s not like anyone has a wherewithal to oppose you.

What a sad day.


This is a ridiculous attempt at spinning a narrative. We all know there are vastly more people in the Sushi community than there are forum users, and the announcement made news which brought people in. New accounts seem to be going both ways, but I’d say the fresh blood is a good thing. If you’re trying to delegitimize anyone who knows me, offers their experience with me, or is excited by my nomination is fake by definition, then I don’t know what to tell you.

Edit: it should go without saying, but yes: if you’re trolling, if you don’t know my work, if you don’t have an authentic interest in seeing Sushi succeed, whatever it may be, please don’t vote. I don’t need or want that


I’m sorry you see it that way. It’s exactly how dani and Sifu played it here.

Do you really believe that when an important temperature check like this goes up, brand new users (such as ceo candidates frens) should be allowed flood in to vote?

It’s a governance attack issue and has always been strongly frowned on here. You can look up numerous old posts about it.

The good news is that the zero trust users can be and normally are removed.


Its pretty telling that the discussion by actual community members here is in stark contrast to the polling results. If there was so much support - why not speak up? Bots I say bots…

Based on the discussion here doesnt seem like this should be elevated to snapshot at all.

Im a definite anon - no


I don’t need or want that

Ask not what Sushi can do for you (and your comp), ask what you can do for decentralization


Listening to the discord forum gave me even less confidence.

@Neiltbe noted only he himself (?) comprised the compensation committee.
When asked how he reached such high benchmark numbers, @Neiltbe spoke about former market driven revenues and that the proposed compensation simply “fit into the budget”. The budget has not been made clear, despite numerous posts here indicating how the total comp would comprise 15% of the treasury.

@jhoward disclosed that he had a previous relationship with @Neiltbe, but hadn’t spoken in 2 years. He also said he had previously helped Neil raise funds for his startup.

@mountain_goat disclosed there were only two candidates that were considered.

Will let everyone here form their own opinions of these revelations. I hold the opinion this poll is null and there is no consensus to move towards a snapshot given multiple issues, clear conflicts of interest, and that this proposal could effectively be broken up into multiple components to be separately voted upon for a healthy governance process. Separate the candidate from the comp, from performance target reductions.


There should be 2 polls really.

1: on the candidate themself

2: on the compensation structure


In relation to the compensation package, I do have the following questions which imo will help the Sushi community to better understand if the remuneration is fair for the specific role:

• What benchmark has been used for the Chef’s remuneration? How does the numeration compare to other major DEXs non-founders equivalent positions?
• How does the total remuneration % to protocol revenue compares to other DEXs equivalent position?
• The last 30 days the protocol revenue for Sushi per Tokenterminal is $728k. Does it make sense the annual compensation for the Head Chef, excluding bonuses, to be more than a months protocol revenue?
• Why has the token price been used as threshold for the bonus compensation? The token price, in a big extent, is outside the Head Chef’s control and performance as it is mainly driven by crypto/economics cycle.
• Imo there are other Key Performance Indicators that are much more important and are representative of the head Chefs contribution as :

  1. The increase of protocol revenue, which will have direct impact on xSushi holders and the token price
  2. the successful/high quality -on time and on budget launches of Sushi products
  3. New users added to the Sushi ecosystem
  4. Increased volume of transactions and TVL
  5. Value added to the Sushi ecosystem from new products and whether the investments have been a good use of funds
    I am sure that the community will come up with additional metrics that are more representative than the token price itself.
    I want to acknowledge that the Head Chef’s position is instrumental for Sushi’s success and the individual must be compensated fairly for the responsibility and the risk which it entails. However, I feel that no sufficient information has been shared in relation to the process followed and the data used with the Sushi community in order to be able to assess that fairness of the compensation. It feels like the compensation package has been copied from a VC or web2 tech company, without taking into accounts the specifics of Sushi and Crypto/DEX industry.

Seems like a potential Head Chef attracting a new community to Sushi would be a massive positive. This nomination has put a spotlight on a DAO that could benefit from a previously untapped group of young, ambitious builders and investors. The vast majority of them have not posted here, but they are paying attention.

It’s perfectly fair to request that they refrain from voting, but the fact that this proposal has brought new people to this forum only for them to leave with a bad taste in their mouths is a missed opportunity. If a 9-figure DAO doesn’t want new people to vote on temp checks, it should be trivial to implement token or reputation gating instead of leaving the option open and then labeling it a governance attack.

None of the new posters have touched on compensation terms or the transparency of the nomination process, because those are governance issues that are none of our concern. We are simply people with reputations in web3 providing insight into the competency of a candidate the DAO members clearly lack context on, and this community is better off discounting or ignoring those perspectives if they are unwelcome instead of meeting them with hostility.


Replying for clarity since most of this is not true.

Me & Matthew (Imsoftware) are on the comp committee. When looking at what makes sense for Sushi and exercising judgement about putting this forward we looked at where Sushi was today (present day metrics, challenges, etc.) & the challenges faced. Budget was the most important factor for me, the funds for this were already earmarked for Head Chef purpose via Sushi 2.0

Yeah I met Jon in SF, he was super helpful in showing me the ropes in the Bay Area how to pitch, fundraise, etc. I founded a web 2 SaaS co. You can find the details of that in the 2.0 comments section where I share my background. There was a content plan & then an ask for everyone to amplify to their networks & specifically ping me for outbound for anyone the team would like to outbound to. We actually had a few Sushi integration partners reach out and point me in the direction & that was followed up on. However from the team there was not any prospects identified that people felt fit the bill.

I moved from SF to the East Coast at the start of the pandemic so we didn’t really chat but when this whole thing of having to find a head chef given the mandate I hit him up and talked about what was going on at Sushi, 2.0 and if he’d throw his hat in the ring etc.

Not true. More than 2. Two is the number that made it to a certain checkpoint in the process. The majority of candidates dropped out once they were informed of the entirety of what the pathway to a nomination & election would look like & all of the hoops they needed to jump through as an individual.