Fire Omakase due to stealing money and Daniele governance attack collusion. Add a constitution


Omakase has single handedly brought value in the millions for Sushi. However, now, it is costing the company its’ very existence. This is an urgent matter. I suggest firing them effectively immediately. This is due to them previously stealing money from the company after putting it in the accounts of a client and losing it (they deposited their wage into CREAM, borrowed against it, lost money in a hack) and due to the recent governance attack they have manufactured. When asked about putting it to a vote with the rest of the companies’ partners (read, voters, signers), they vehemently denied the idea. This is due to the company having NO VOTED ON BYLAWS BY ANY PARTNER OR ASSOCIATE.


As it stands, the company is owned by those with the accounts. Omakase has been hiring people so that they can “vote” when they call votes so that Omakase can gain more access to the accounts. Omakase likely orchestrated the firing of Joseph Delong as they wanted to bully them into backing over their governance attack. Omakase stole money, and when caught, assumed it would be normal for them as a partner to steal money from the company without any vote.


Having our partners and associate steal money from the company is in no way a behavior that can be tolerated at our firm. Fire Omakase, immediately. Launch a full investigation on and with public answers from all members hired by Omakase, effectively immediately upon firing them. They are likely to be involved in the governance attack.
As an example, immediately stop streaming funds and start an investigation into BoringCrypto They recently delivered a licensed product to both Sushi and sold it to Wonderland, who are now trying to do a merger and hostile takeover with no acquisition of the companies’ tokens.

They are trying to do this with creating a new LLC within the company that will take off the market part of Sushi’s products which are in direct competition with the suggested new members of the LLC. They are trying to take off xSushi cause it competes with Wonderland products made by Daniele. The claims are that they are not adding value to the holders of the company. This is a lie orchestrated to make the corporate takeover effective.


Fire Omakase. Remove them from any sig. Strip them of all Discord, forum, or any social media roles. Launch an investigation into BoringCrypto. Launch an investigation into Create and vote on companies’ bylaws, after formulating specifications of the bylaws for Sushi in a new forum post


Omakase fired effectively immediately for stealing company funds and attacking the unwritten Sushi governance process.


Omakase will continue censoring and stealing company funds and will take over more of the unwritten Sushi governance.

  • For firing Omakase, reviewing BoringCrypto, drafting the Constitution
  • Against firing Omakase, reviewing BoringCrypto, drafting the Constitution

0 voters


You seem so entirely lost. No proofs, just baseless accusations.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Fully support you and should be fired

1 Like

and just asking, are you not curious about what would happen if the allegations were true?

1 Like

These claims are categorically false and quite frankly irresponsible.

“This is due to them previously stealing money from the company after putting it in the accounts of a client and losing it (they deposited their wage into CREAM, borrowed against it, lost money in a hack) and due to the recent governance attack they have manufactured.”

Stealing money from company is absurd considering there is no company and no funds have ever been misappropriated out of the very decentralized nature of a multisig process.

Additionally these claims seem to be motivated by a conflict of interest from LevxDAO, with a specific focus on Boring for some reason.

If there are concerns about transparency and since this is not a new account, will leave this post open, but lock it due to the conditions these claims are just false.



Please transfer your rights, the community will vote and if you want to continue to lead, you can nominate yourself

1 Like

"needs a" quorum vote

read as: this how left the great chef nomi left it, and now, if i want to steal, i need to ask you guys before asking all the rest of the investors whether i can steal or not

1 Like

bump for conspiracy to commit fraud not being ok


new bump cause still forum banned from being hangry, still want the fraudulent actor fired
ban me for bumps next? xoxoxo

fyi its tough to get an agenda done with getting censored out of reaching an audience (e.g. self-appointing themselves as leaders, without letting elections go transparently and publicly; promoting their governance proposals on twitter to reach quorum (top down structure) without promoting posts that are in their detriment (firing omakase, who is also the one holding hostage the twitter, or making the forum votes transparent))


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Stealing is not nice. Having the intention to steal is not nice. Deleting proof (or anything that’s pretended to be proof) and not letting people think and decide for themselves isn’t nice either.


With all due respect, we have a chatlog of your little conspiratorial meeting with the multisig stewards: Sushi | Core Omnibus - chat transcript

Imho, LevX is asking all the right questions. You have basically put all of your salary into Cream Finance without taking insurance, so why should SushiSwap compensate you for this recklessness?

Also, why wasn’t this disclosed to the community? Out of fear of being publicly shamed? For what…falling victim to a hacker? Is this what you call transparency?

For me this sounds more like an attempt to leave the community in the dark about what happens with multisig funds behind closed doors. I mean it’s not nice to lose all of your salary in a hack and that you have done a lot of things for SushiSwap, I get that. But a full compensation essentially means paying you a bonus of >50% on top of what you have already received. Things like that absolutely need governance consensus.


I’ll address this one final time. There is nothing wrong with holding a discussion. Everything starts off with a discussion, the Ops multisig has released the full text of the chat multiple times to show the nature of our discussions and willingness to escalate to both an all hands and then subsequently governance if deemed necessary. The point of contention seems to be who handles the matter of comp- the service collective or governance. Both are valid positions to take since comp had evolved to fall under the purview of the service collective after initially starting off from governance. There are many unusual situations that need discussion: loss of comp, entry of comp at a higher price, etc that don’t occur at a normal workplace. There is no privilege or expectation, that’s literally the first rule of being a builder in open source, there’s only discussions around processes.

Levx continuously drums up from the armchair of his own discord that some conspiracy occurred when absolutely no action nor attempt was taken to hide this incident from the DAO. He didn’t even care to join the first all hands where this initial discussion was held, and defaulted to decrying having no information or discussion. As seen in the full text chat- anonymity was chosen since the individual should not matter, the process matters. If an individual, whether that’s me or anyone else, loses their salary that they neither traded with and paid appropriate taxes through collateralization- what should be the process? This should be the discussion. Not about who it is, do we like this person enough, etc- that’s just nonsense and doesn’t prevent the next incident. Perhaps the service collective should handle CDPs directly in order to avoid such a situation entirely. After all this noise we haven’t seen one constructive process on how to prevent this situation from occurring.

What matters in the end are actions. No actions were taken since multisigs should be by definition conservative. Welcome to decentralization: lots of discussion, very few make it to actions. Lots of these screenshots also conveniently leave out the fact that I withdrew this discussion topic since it devolved quite frankly into group politics the anonymity sought to avoid and mitigate. The full text of the Ops multisig predicted this occurrence very accurately. I see lots of comments saying theft occurred and conspiracy to commit fraud occurred by very recent accounts. None of this has happened at the end of the day- all multisig transactions are annotated and on chain.

Happy to answer questions and concerns as always.


If your house burned down would you hold a discussion for sushi funds to cover it? Of course not because not sushi’s responsibility to cover your personal loss. This is no different. Also, this was more than a discussion, the core team was rushed to vote on this. Lastly, Ops multisig didn’t release that chat, it was leaked. So appreciate the spin but it’s just that, spin.


Rushed to vote towards what? No actions were taken, the discussion from all hands concluded the process needed to be considered. All discussions of process were taken off the table as it devolved into interpersonal chaos quite frankly.

Again the discrepancy seems to be whether this is a matter handled by the service collective or governance. I agree both are valid pathways, this discussion ultimately started within the service collective and there were discussions to bring it to governance. The only spin being placed here is since as a discussion topic this was not immediately brought forth to governance this constitutes fraud. It does not, it not being brought forth towards governance, since I withdrew the topic from discussion, can only be constituted at best negligence in no escalation or a dropped topic. You’re supposition is that this topic shouldn’t even be brought up for discussion in any format, and that’s where we can agree to disagree.

Sushi omnibus chat was released but this is not the ops multisig chat, Levx loves to screenshot from and cherry-pick without full context and conveniently leave out the part talking about having no expectations or privilege - this is all just a discussion. Additionally all the omnibus chat shows is further discussion. No transactions were planned, even initiated, or executed. Ops multisig released its chat contents consistently within omnibus- if you need a copy, it would be included in the Sushi Omnibus chat or I’m happy to share.

So for those unfamiliar with the chat was posted by t_w_kaiser:

This went way past just a simple conversation, there was a poll up with a shockingly 5 to 1 in favor of reimbursement. Which led to team members complaining about being forced to make a quick decision. Luckily this devolved into interpersonal chaos and was shelved. After all, it was a really really $hitty idea.

If actions were taken or not matters not, I repeat this shouldn’t have even been brought up for discussion. If you think that the discrepancy is between if the matter should be handled by service collective or governance then you are sorely mistaken. The discrepancy is that I can’t believe this was even needed to be debated. Gupta nails it quite well in the chat,

“I don’t understand why would ops refund loss in a personal accident. I’ve lost like 100k in rugs, it never even came to my mind that someone else will reimburse”

I respect what you have done for sushi and you losing your funds was bull$shit but not sushi’s responsibility to cover your losses. That you don’t see the obvious is the main reason I don’t think you are fit to lead sushi.

Problems with you in leadership:

  1. Will heavily split the community/investors

  2. Quite possibly split the core team, you being defacto leader is doing it currently or did in this instance

  3. I have seen instances of you censoring valid criticism about this and other matters. I want transparency in a leader and you haven’t shown to be willing to offer it unless your back is up against the wall.

You have done a lot for sushi, you helped create what it is today but you are not ready to lead it in my opinion. Daniel/Arca will most likely push their proposal thru, but you will not lead through any meaningful consensus but simply by the two whales who bought that proposal. If this happens I hope you take it upon yourself to restore the trust you have lost with a lot of community members. Some self-reflection may help you discover why so many people are up in arms.

  • open for discussion
  • discussion
  • withdrew for discussion
  • no action taken

Seems like a pretty normal sequence of events. Anyone antagonizing or dividing community based on discussions occurring is functionally unable to participate in discourse. There’s going to be good ideas, bad ideas, doesn’t matter- discussion is what matters. Honestly I’d rate this a medium bad idea- the purpose was to open up discussions about establishing process and protections for salaries that are atypical to normal working environments- the painpoints are many. Process is what matters. Seems like both ran it’s course in this instance.

To address additional concerns, I’ll simply ask for a vote to be put up across all dimensions: community, investors, team, etc. Responding to 5 new accounts with the same IP spamming is barely considered community nor is it constructive. With regards to transparency, I don’t feel as if my back is up against the wall- happy to discuss anything, but usually just building the next iteration of products and not in the forum all the time. I’ll make more time going forward. Again, these screenshots seem to be selective and lack context in the plans to elevate discussions to larger formats, they simply were not since the discussion was withdrawn.

1 Like

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.