Proposal: Burn Unclaimed 2/3 Vested SUSHI Rewards

As it stands, the vesting contract precludes dispersion of the 2/3 sushi rewards to any and all smart contracts to protect from parasitic farms who have only one purpose: market dump sushi to buy back their own token to pump their token price.
Any platforms who would like to have those sushi rewards given to them must submit a proposal and it must be voted on by governance. Pickle is the only platform thus far to submit one.
I propose a few variations of burn-scenarios for that vested sushi.

Allow a fair time-window for protocols to create proposals for governance to decide upon the dispersal of the 2/3 vested sushi rewards. Also create a plan on what do about the sushi which cannot and will not be claimed.

The current plan in place is to allow an indefinite amount of time for protocols to draft a proposal and get approval to claim their vested sushi rewards. The protocols that do not claim or are not approved to claim this sushi, will have their sushi either burned, or sent to treasury.

I propose one major plan with three smaller sub-plans:
1.1: Have a 1 month time window starting March 29, 2021 for protocols to draft a proposal, upon the absence or rejection of these proposals, burn the vested sushi rewards 1-2 times per week.
1.2: Have a 2 month time window starting March 29, 2021 for protocols to draft a proposal, upon the absence or rejection of these proposals, burn the vested sushi rewards 1-2 times per week.
1.3: Have a 3 month time window starting March 29, 2021 for protocols to draft a proposal, upon the absence or rejection of these proposals, burn the vested sushi rewards 1-2 times per week.

2. Leave the current plan in place as it stands.

Please feel free to let me know your thoughts! This is my first proposal ever drafted for any protocol, so I would love your feedback. Thank you.

  • Option 1.1
  • Option 1.2
  • Option 1.3
  • Option 2

0 voters


As it is currently implemented, the Sushi will be essentially burned if not claimed.

So there are two options:

  1. The projects reach out, get a concrete plan up and we redirect the Sushi
  2. We don’t redirect the Sushi (for one reason or another) and the Sushi will stay in the vesting contract (either burned, or subsequently withdrawn into the treasury (f.e.) in case we decide to)

Thanks! I will update my proposal with this in mind now :slight_smile:


Can someone point to where it was voted to disallow smart contracts? This kinda screws over multisigs


We shouldn’t burn the sushi. Merge unclaimed assets with the treasury after enough (3-6 month) time has passed.

1 Like

It also screws over every protocol and contract that took Sushi at its word (like Yam for example) that these rewards would be distributed – the very same protocols and contracts that enabled Sushi to get such traction and liquidity.

Sushi’s biggest value prop thus far has been composability, ecosystem partnerships, rewards, and a 2nd chance narrative – in other words, community. This exclusion decision destroys each of those, and along with it, the goodwill Sushi has generated.

I’ve reviewed the relevant forum posts and snapshots and compiled a list of screenshots that clearly show this was not a decision made by governance - in fact it is clear that most of the comments by the community clearly oppose withholding these SUSHI rewards.

I hope this decision is rectified. Frankly, it is a rugpull.


imagine management making a decision that affects literally billions of dollars without a vote from sushi holders.

thats what has occurred here. decentralized theatre + rug pull indeed


We promised 2/3 lockup to be distributed after 6 months and this should have been coded in a smart contract. Code is law. Because we didn’t create a contract, we now have full access over the SUSHI. But we should do what we said we would do. Changing the rules after the fact feels like ‘breach of contract’ to me. The only exception I see is contracts that have no way to claim the SUSHI. Normally they would lose out, but I’m happy for them to provide details on which of their users should get what and distribute accordingly.

These funds should stay claimable indefinitely. (I’m still pissed off about quite a few projects that upgraded their token and closed swapping after a certain period, leaving me holding worthless bags for being early and hodling without checking in regularly)


As much as I don’t like the idea of projects potentially claiming their SUSHI and selling it immediately on the open market, I agree with @BoringCrypto here. Instead of taking a defensive tact and blocking these projects from claiming their SUSHI, we should be focused on creating value for the token and ecosystem that incentivizes these projects to hold their SUSHI much like Tesla holding BTC to their treasury. Reputation is everything, and given all of the drama we have gotten past in the last few months, I think it wise to do whatever we can to be good crypto citizens.

Yes, these projects could potentially dump their SUSHI, and the short-term impact on price would not be ideal (I for one would LOVE the opportunity to load up on more SUSHI at a discount). However, as anyone who has been in the crypto space long enough knows, once these projects capitulate and sell, that sets us up for a much stronger recovery and upward trajectory. If they want to sell, let them sell. They’re obviously not believers and this just distributes the tokens to people who are believers and support the future of SUSHI.


Just let it be! Most likely unclaimed SUSHIs will be from smaller holders

Let’s do it. sushi is affected by uncertainty.

Just start here- if i claim my 1 suhi today i pay 44$ Fee -so i will not claim for a long time and do not understand what this discussion is good for

It does seem like a really bad idea not to disperse the funds. If they follow an unlock period similar to how Synthetix’s escrows work, it shouldn’t have to large of an impact on price. It will damage Sushi’s reputation to just not hold up to its promise on rewards.

No Sushi should be withheld from anyone. I echo the sentiments of trente, belmore, BoringCrypto, and Uliner.

  1. Withholding rewards to anyone was never stated in an official capacity.

  2. When this was brought up in the SIMP#3 forum thread there was strong opposition to the idea.

  3. The SIMP#3 Snapshot with option 2 (which won): “Similar approach to Balancer’s claims - use a smart contract that would allow claiming every week. This would cost us almost nothing, but the receivers would have to bear much higher gas costs, possibly preventing smaller farmers from claiming their Sushi.”

I understand the desire to prevent Sushi from going to stale/broken contracts but we should not use that as the reason for not paying out to all smart contracts. Members/participants of smart contracts that are stale/broken need to come forward and self-advocate.

As for the concern for people selling Sushi…if people want to sell they will sell. By withholding coins from farmers we’ll just be delaying the price impact. Let the free markets run their course.


Totally agree with @BoringCrypto . We shouldn’t “breach of contract.” It should be claimable indefinitely.

If it’s don’t claimed, it’s equal to burned

Yes excellent, excellent. Question. Where do we go to claim these SUSHI Rewards?

1 Like

More information will follow soon before the end date of the six months. Will be in the form of a merkle drop with a simple claim button on the main Sushi UI.
I want to get SUSHI to all that directly or indirectly staked. All logic is already in place for those that staked directly.

uncertainties are always bad. Prizes should be distributed as soon as possible.

I want everyone to know I am not against unlocking any and all sushi. I originally made this proposal to help with exposure of this topic, and help further discussion about this. As it currently stands, ANY protocol that farmed sushi can submit a proposal and get their 2/3 vested sushi as long as the COMMUNITY votes yes through a snapshot.

Please check the Pickle proposal as an example: Vested SUSHI Rewards for Pickle Finance

Right now (afaik) the vesting is only going to direct wallets, and not contracts. Submitting a proposal is free, and snapshot voting is also free. If a protocol submits a proposal that says “give us our sushi because it’s ours” and the token holders vote yes, then they will get it. If the token holders vote no, they will be required to re-submit a proposal that forms a better partnership with the sushi holders and ecosystem.

This CAN be a way for smaller farms to not just dump tokens, but create a synergistic partnership where both sushi and these protocols can grow together in harmony. Please do not misconstrue my proposal.

1 Like