REINSTATED: Increase Kanpai Treasury Allocation to 100%

REINSTATED: Increase Kanpai Treasury Allocation to 100%

I withdrew the original proposal to take into consideration the feedback from the community to help make it more focused and time-specific.


Over the past two months as Head Chef, I’ve spent most of my time analyzing the operational and budgetary expenses and liabilities to ensure the project’s long-term success. After reviewing expenditures, it’s clear that a significant deficit in the Treasury threatens Sushi’s operational viability, requiring an immediate remedy.

In my original proposal, Sushi operated with an annual runway of 9M USD. However, after my detailed review, we reduced that requirement to 5M USD. We made the reduction possible by renegotiating infrastructure contracts, scaling back underperforming or superfluous dependencies, and instituting a budget freeze on non-critical personnel and infrastructure.

However, as previously stated, Sushi is currently near full distribution of its token supply and has yet to capitalize on opportunities to diversify its Treasury and provide the necessary liquidity for ongoing operations. The Treasury currently provides for ~1.5 years of runway. Therefore, the situation requires immediate action to ensure sufficient resources for uninterrupted operation.

Bear market environments present multiple challenges for projects and teams, and recently, we’ve seen many notable projects lay off substantial personnel or go bankrupt. It makes little sense for Sushi to follow a similar path when it has an opportunity to capture its singular significant source of revenue and direct it back to the Treasury for the benefit of all.

So, I propose setting Kanpai to 100% of fees diverted to the Treasury multisig, for one year or until new tokenomics are implemented, helping return Sushi’s fiscal resources to a competitive level. An additional benefit of Kanpai’s solution to the Treasury is the diversification of assets, which limits the need for market selling Sushi, which is a net positive for all stakeholders.

In addition to Kanpai’s revenue, the Sushi team increased its funding by securing several multi-million dollar partner deals. Yet, relying on business development deals is only part of a successful business model to secure Sushi’s future.

Kanpai is a temporary solution to a long-term problem, and a new tokenomics proposal is on the horizon, which will help address the long-term value proposition of Sushi for stakeholders. Sushi must implement a holistic token model that allows the rebuilding of the Treasury and delivers value for all stakeholders while reducing the fiscal liability carried solely by the protocol. New tokenomics will take time to implement and pass through governance and will take several weeks to implement technically, a process that could extend into Q2-Q3 of 2023.

In closing, it’s important to note the success of Sushi is everyone’s desired outcome. But unfortunately, many projects face similar obstacles in the current market cycle, and we should seize the opportunity to secure the future of Sushi by acting in its best interests together.

  • Yes - Secure Sushi’s Future with Kanpai
  • No - Do Not Secure Sushi’s Future with Kanpai

0 voters

Historical Links for Reference:

Is this a temporary measure until tokenomics are fixed? Or, is this a measure for the foreseeable future (18 months or longer)?

Hey Nick, “So, I propose setting Kanpai to 100% of fees diverted to the Treasury multisig, for one year or until new tokenomics are implemented…” The goal with new tokenomics is to help rebuild Treasury, so the need for xSushi is no longer required. However, that will depend on the separate governance proposal and the passing of the new tokenomics, and why I added the one-year term as default.


Thanks, Jared. That’s helpful to know. Apologies if that was clarified in the proposal. Was busy today and I couldn’t read the whole thing.


Depriving xSushi holders of the fees they are entitled to is a breach of primary covenant before the community.

You already went to claw back unclaimed sushi, and it wasn’t enough?

Few things are as long-lasting, as those deemed ‘temporary’.


No one is depriving anyone. It’s an agreement to redirect the fees to save the project. It’s that simple.


Is it necessary to phrase the poll in such a biased way towards the choice you want ppl to vote?

Question is about Kanpai fees.

‘ No - Do Not Secure Sushi’s Future with Kanpai ‘

Imo the phrasing of this is manipulative sensationalism


The wording highlights the reality of the choices.

So without this passing you are saying sushi shuts up shop?

I think I’ve made it very clear what the purpose of this proposal is meant to accomplish: shore up Treasury to extend the runway so that Sushi continues operation.

1 Like

It’s manipulatively phrased. There’s no need to word things in such a way imo. It’s unbecoming

1 Like

Do you think Sushi survives without additional resources?

This is not the ONLY way sushi can survive and that’s why I feel the wording of the poll is like something Cambridge analytica wrote.

I appreciate your opinions but not how you are wording the two options. It’s manipulation and unbecoming from a leader of DAO imo


Yes, it’s the only way Sushi can immediately create value for the Treasury. I make a case for why the project is in the state it currently is in, and I’m not sharing my opinions. These are facts because the token and business model that Sushi has operated under since its inception are broken and leak value in every possible way. Sushi has missed the opportunity to capture the largest era of value from its Treasury, and now the project team and its community have to unite to save it. My wording reflects the exact nature of the issue that this project faces; it’s not unbecoming or manipulative to tell the community the truth about the state of the project. If anything, the collective naivety of some members presents a clear danger to the project as much as its poor financial state.


I have faith that your tokenomics overhaul and financial review can make the necessary adjustments to ‘runway’

A glaring issue with this is that Neil and I’mSoftware negotiated these pay deals and bonuses for/with and on behalf of team. This comp committee presented a different narrative while we voted on that yet now we are told it’s unsustainable, unaffordable and threatens sushi’s future?

Why haven’t you reviewed wages/bonuses first?

Compensation Committee
The Compensation Committee will have several main jobs:

  1. Compensation negotiations
  2. Track TWAP and as well as approve the Roadmap based vested Sushi once the Roadmap is complete/or when individual items on the roadmap are complete.
  3. Help with compensation negotiations on future hires
  4. Observe the establishment of formal roles & responsibilities.
  5. Negotiate future compensation plans after the outlined ones expire.
  6. Review individual performance evaluations for pathways to contributor promotion, probation, or termination.
  7. Vet, approve, & disclose budget requests.

Initially we propose Matthew Lilley & Neil to sit on this committee as they have each been helping with the restructuring plan, interviewed all current sushi contributors, and have already begun negotiating Sushi contributor contracts.


All feelings aside, nobody here should be under the illusion that there are unlimited paths to success. We are realistically at the last chance saloon and everyone is working hard to ensure that all avenues of increasing the probability of a long term success are covered, many of us have put our blood, sweat and tears into this project, prematurely aged a few extra years too, and it would hurt to see it fail after all the tumoil.

I think that re-directing fees for a period of 12 months to improve probability of long term success is a no brainer, and as a top Sushi holder with the best interests of Sushi at heart, would vote on this proposal.


In business terms, you are ignoring the option of reducing costs and renegotiating the unsustainable wage increases you implemented as head of comp committee.

For example the increased pay packages that the shoyu team were given by you prior to the product being released.

We need to fairly review both income and expenditure before making this decision imo. We were promised transparency but we don’t know how much anyone gets paid. Even you as cto.

Please provide transparency and show that the reductions necessary are not one sided or being imposed on the community because of overly generous wages.


Please save Sushi
In Sushi we trust

Why this obsession with getting revenue into the treasury? First I’d love to see some transparency on finances, but if you claim a current runway of 1.5 years, I don’t see why there’s such a rush? If the team is not able to increase the value of $SUSHI significantly in the next 1 year or so with a budget of $5M, then maybe there are other issues that need fixing. As the price of SUSHI goes up, so will the value of the treasury and the runway will grow. I’d say, focus on launching a competitive swap product first (Trident?) and get back market share instead of focusing on tokenomics. Wasting time on tokenomics is pointless is the protocol is becoming less and less relevant.

If there ever was a need for extra funds and a clear plan on how that would be deployed (and full transparency on current financials) I would totally support increasing the max totalsupply to 250M, streaming the extra 50M over 4 years and this time locking it to that by smart contract. This will also work much better with any improved tokenomics, because there will be room for some more emissions.

Bottom line, Sushi doesn’t currently have a competitive product (at least last time I checked, if it does, it should be marketed better) and I think reaching parity with UniSwap and Curve should be the first (and pretty much only) priority. Everything else is a distraction. Limited runway is a great motivator.


hi. hello :wave: what are the current team member salaries so we can judge runway and this request.

1 Like