I like how no heed is paid to the arguments and the proposal just straight goes to a vote with a 4.8m support lol. Theathrics at its finest.
im doing my best to sort through the nonsense. i see a lot of things being brought up and developed that are already deployed on other dex/amm with a different name. for me when things dont make sense i need to bring the nonsense so i can figure out what is what.
Did you consider to get back the $1,800,000 investment made by Sushi in the company " FujiDAO " ?
Transactions involved here :
Check again, pretty close now.
Let’s see some real facts about the ecosystem, who really cares what is done? Also this is noted as temporary which could mean it’s never needed, needed for 1 day or 300 years?
The 200k USD in the treasury isn’t enough money for 1 family to live on for 18 months.
If there is no honesty there can be no real decisions made by the DAO and sushi further suffers with “smart” idiots like you looking down on and making fun of people for making decisions on almost no information.
We (GoldenChain/GoldenTree) will vote yes on the signal vote for Kanpai, as we believe it is necessary to provide for the long-term stability of the Sushi protocol. That being said, we believe the implementation of this proposal needs to be significantly clarified before going to a final vote. We think the community needs more time to digest and understand the importance of the proposal, and believe there needs to be more debate around the parameters of implementation.
For example, we believe there should be a strict cutoff for diverting yield at 6 months, and any further extension would require a vote.
We also would like to see clarity around a potential reassessment of this proposal if new tokenomics are planned to be implemented within the next 12 months.
We view Kanpai as a remedy for the past failure to diversify the treasury during a bull market, and should not reflect poorly on the current team. We believe they have been transparent with their budget needs, and have been working hard to cut expenses. Increasing the runway will benefit all holders of Sushi, it just needs to be done with full community understanding.
As discourse is important to us, we will be paying close attention to the discussions on the board and in public. If the broader community is skeptical of the proposal even after more robust debate, we will reconsider our vote.
Fair point, and it’s worth emphasizing that none of these issues are things that can be addressed without a proactive approach by the current team. We should recognize and applaud that effort. It’s without doubt, at this stage, an essential debate, and dialogue to have.
By voting “yes” now despite the reservations, especially with such a large (5.9m of sushipowah) vote it only serves to make those that have smaller voting power with an intended “no” vote feel put off by the relative lack of impact those votes would make. Note; Golden Tree previously disclosed wallet address as 0x9C2ba3E13616e27eC15E799797424B0c3D00cEB1
Given the rest of the points, why not abstain for now & decide closer to close of vote?
Changing my vote to no because hedge funds should not exist in this space or anywhere else for that matter. GoldenTee should go spend that money on hookers and blow. What a drain on good human resources wasted on projections and shit product peddling.
Fork Sushi removing all these hedge funds and people with more money they dictated the lives of billions for long enough. We have been using their shit system for 100s of years and we know who it works for and who it doesn’t.
This is the exact opposite mindset we should have. We want to encourage large investors, not shun them. Just because someone is a “hedge fund” doesnt make them bad.
No such thing as tainted when it comes to money, i was just trying to make a point is all.
Hello @MarkOKW, I see Goldentree and Cumberland are doing whatever is necessary to push this decision forward, again swaying any remaining voter decisions in your direction. It’s astonishing that there is even an attempt at explaining your reasoning when 4M+ of voting power each is used against the rest of the community.
You have mentioned clarification on the proposal itself is needed yet failed to explain why an automatic increase in allocation to 100% is needed. Yes, I agree with your following point that the community has received the bare minimum request for employee budgets, however, there has been little to no attempt to explain the following:
- where expenses have been cut in relation to team spending
- what impact do current expenses have on Sushi as a protocol
- a list of protocol features & their funding requirements for each team member
- how does the Sushi team justify such expenses with the protocol’s lack of growth/improvement
Increasing the runway will benefit all holders of Sushi, it just needs to be done with full community understanding.
For example, blanket statements such as these display no effective reasoning for why there must be an increase in an already extravagant runway. How does this benefit tokenholders and differentiate Sushi from other protocols if the outcome is a false veil of equal voting and the inability to clarify what the protocol is actually accomplishing based on milestones?
These are only a few points to be considered, however, I think it’s rather disingenuous of GoldenTree/Chain to view their investment in the protocol as a help to the community (in theory) when in practice this has become nothing more than a method for moving the balances in your favor. This is already eerily similar to voting proposals for Sushi’s competitors. For a simple example, we can view the following proposals:
From the Head Chef Final Vote Election - Snapshot
From the current Kanpai Signal vote - Snapshot
This tweet from Adam is a summary of what I would expect as a proper method for improving both compensation & protocol growth, yet your response relied on “runway is not sustainable for team’s milestones” & “they can answer this in 12 months”. In that scenario, the community would have relatively no clue as to what to expect from the team and resort to a “trust me bro” mentality, which is hardly enough to justify increased spending and removal of benefits for tokenholders.
I’m grateful that there at least has been an increase in voting from the previous set of proposals, from 300+ to 700+ votes (even though the results are still the same) shows that the Signal proposal is somewhat working. From here I would expect that GoldenChain & the Sushi team use their efforts/investments in both time & money to truly justify this increased spending. The broader community has already expressed their skepticism, both on Twitter, this forum, and through voting on the proposal itself (the results were to reject the proposal prior to your vote which you’re aware of).
Hope to hear viable reasons for this proposal’s continuation into the final vote from you soon
where they get all this sushipowah? this the 401ks tied up that people cant draw their own money out? that where this comes from? that why my 401k ROI is down like 40% in the last 2 years and im not allowed to roll it anywhere else or remove it without quitting? we dont need hedge fund money. goldentee golf was good but im not a fan of this goldentree especially they come on here with this “WE” talk.
GoldenChain’s initial investment came from the overarching fund GoldenTree, $5-8m is relatively a drop in the bucket to them. However yeah, it’s enough to sway the voting in any way they’d like so I’d be hesitant to think of a good reason why they’d allocate such large amounts of Sushi if not to push things in their direction.
I am not sure the number of votes is defiantly a positive signal. Of the 782 voters 553 (or 70%) have less than than 5 SUSHIPOWAH (hold less than 5 sushi in any of the forms eligible for voting) - these are not holders, these are airdrop hunters hoping some day their participation in the Sushi governance will qualify them for some free money. Also many groups of tens of these are controlled by one or another address, so it is also a sybil attack in terms of the airdrops they are hoping for and though it does not matter for the vote result, it still gives wrong number of the real voters.
Of the 782 voters, 682 have less than 50 SUSHIPOWAH. So only 100 address with 50 or more SUSHIPOWAH have voted. Only 82 with 100+ powah and only 59 addresses with 500+ powah…
Hello Mark do you have any update you’d like to provide on this or is it irrelevant to you guys now?
Thank you for the update Lamer, this is a good point to bring up. Initially, I had simply noticed the voting sizes decrease the further I scrolled but I was unaware of how little holdings the majority of voters had. Such a small tier of voters holding that much power and it’s amazing how many people (including myself) view this as a community turnout.
What did you use to find this data or did you just compile it yourself? Would love to use this in the future to compare snapshot proposals!
Hey, I am just querying Snapshot GraphQL API - https://hub.snapshot.org/graphql. It is really useful for observing governance process… Though think Snapshot are planning to limit the access to that
Wow this is perfect, thank you for the help
A bit crazy that they’d shut it off, might have to create our own just for this lol
They are not going to shut it, but more likely won’t be free to use. Not sure we can create our own, as the data is not on-chain, but on their servers, so think they control all the access.
L o L
Yeah, these guys clearly could care less. Literally every vote is filled by 0x9C2 with no additional commentary. Pretty sure people/community has just given up on trying to democratize any sense of voting.
It is a bit annoying, shameful even but I guess it goes to show that there is a better chance for monarchical governance to occur when VC funds are integrated into the underlying structure of any protocol.
Looks like Implementation has passed with no issue, gg goldenchain