I think more guidance on what the funds are gonna be used for, and what the current cost for a 5m yearly budget are would calm voices that are against this proposal.
Also like outlined by some people, cutting xSushi basically cuts the main reason for people to hold sushi and thus to buy or not sell their current balance.
I think maybe an in-between could be a first good step: increasing kanpai to 50% ? That would increase the runaway while keeping some revenues for holders.
And on top of that, a detailed explanation on what the team focus is gonna be for the coming months to give more confidence to the community.
This proposal lacks transparency on (a) comp structure and (b) what has been done to adjust burn. Jared starts at $9m required, then drops to $5m, with no clarity on how either number is achieved.
I’m a bit confused as to how many people are actually contributing to the project. @SuShef mentions 20 contributors, while @Neiltbe cites 11. That means contributors, on average, are getting paid ~$250k at floor, and ~$500k if using Neil’s numbers, not including token comp. That’s not a ‘competitive wage’ - that’s a rather absurd wage, especially in this market.
Punishing loyal holders for mismanagement isn’t it. Bring forth other solutions first.
Apple is not forced to sell apple stock to pay the bills. Sushi is on a path to needing to do so in a couple of years. If Sushi is FORCED to market dump $sushi or FORCED out of desperation to print new $sushi to fund operations it will screw all holders. You know who was? Moviepass.
There is not an implicit buyback if xsushi holders are dumping to mitigate price decline of the native coin. You just have gymnastics. Similarly, cheap $sushi for yield is not driving buy pressure. Why? Because no1 has confidence buying size or partnering with Sushi with solvency risk. You’re siphoning off cash from the protocol that can simply sit & provide stability, or can be invested in r&d & product development. Who the hell is going to take a risk to their pocketbook or business by partnering when the solvency of the project is at a horizon of 1.5yrs?
These are headwinds that should be mitigated and I think most people have good intentions for the protocol. Cheap sushi & Xsushi yield is not driving buy pressure as originally intended, so it is broken very simple.
Im not really understanding the point youre trying to make. So youre saying that we should stop buying SUSHI now (via the serve process) bc we may be forced to sell it later? How does moving kanpai to 100% solve this? It doesnt, it just removes the buyback from the market in the near term. If we are concerned about the viability of operating sushiswap we should focus on increasing volumes which will increase swap revenue which will increase the kanpai deposits. And like I said Im fine revisiting what is an appropriate % if you guys can put a real proposal together and not just be like “gimme it all because startup”
Do you have statistics to assert what % of the bar serve has been flipped back out by holders historically? Otherwise this just feels like an assumption. Im sure its not 0% but Im also sure its not 100%.
It’s very simple. Be proactive to do this now…so we’re not forced to market sell $sushi in an unknown macro environment when 18 mo’s comes. The “short term buy mechanism” isn’t actually a buy mechanism lol. It adds no value to the project. You are representing the xsushi mechanism like it’s a buy & burn mechanism. Nor is it adding incremental buys. It is a buy, serve, & then stakers sell to try and offset price decline.
Where are these increasing volumes out of thin air? Disregarding macro, increasing volumes is a byproduct of strong R&D & product development. No amount of dividends to the stakers is adding value to the underlying protocol or volumes or product/tech stack. Even Sushi’s BD lead has pointed out more stability in the treasury will make it more attractive for partners to work with Sushi.
XSUSHI supply has remained flat while price has declined. It’s not serving as a buy mechanism as originally intended so it is broken. https://app.sushi.com/analytics/xsushi this is value leak not being captured by the protocol, not being used for r&d, and not being added to the treasury to extend runway and mitigate stability concerns.
Not a buy mechanism? Fees are accrued in the traded pairs, sold and then SUSHI is purchased and served into the bar. That is a buy mechanism. To say that it “adds no value” to the project seems incredibly myopic. Judging by the fact that SUSHI is underperforming by ~10% since thus proposal was put out, i would say the exact opposite. Its value is that it attracts a certain investorbase which we would now be turning away.
Not sure where I said that, but there is most definitely a degree of stickiness to what gets served and what stays out of the market locked up by stakers.
Again, this is a sweeping assumption youre making without providing any data which is my entire point. Some may sell, but unless you can provide some actual data you cant really just make a sweeping assumption and then point to that assumption as validation to your own argument. xSUSHI supply has been steady around 50-55M for a while as u mentioned. If it was truly being sold off 100% every time it would be in a steady decline as the ratio increases.
Thin air? Its called marketshare gains. Make improvements to the protocol, attract users, increase volumes. Yes you need $$ to do that but so far I have yet to see a business plan. Just “give us more money because startup” as i said above.
Origin created a unique stablecoin, Origin Dollar (OUSD), for the exact purpose of putting idle coins to work, and to extend project runway. OUSD generates yield passively while sitting in multisigs, and can be converted back to USDC, USDT, or DAI at any time. 30 day trailing APY is currently sitting at 8.62%.
In light of the current market conditions and the need to reduce costs, I propose a different solution to the deficit in the Treasury. Instead of increasing revenue through Kanpai, we should focus on cutting costs by firing all employees and replacing them with GPT-3 to write all code at Sushiswap.
Using GPT-3 will not only reduce labor costs, but it will also improve the efficiency and quality of our code. GPT-3 is capable of writing code that is on par with human programmers, and it can work 24/7 without needing breaks or benefits.
In addition to the cost savings, using GPT-3 will also free up our team to focus on other important tasks, such as business development and strategic partnerships. This will help us secure additional funding and diversify our revenue streams, which is essential for the long-term success of the project.
While implementing GPT-3 may require some upfront investment, the cost savings and improved efficiency will more than make up for it. In the long run, this will help us reduce our fiscal liability and rebuild our Treasury, ensuring the continued success of Sushi.
Saying this makes it feel awfully like you are here for the check and not for the future of Sushiswap.
Lead by example - bring your salary down to 150k USD per year. Its more than a liveable salary thats for sure. Competitors are paying more? Okay, step down and go work somewhere else then.
Why should Sushiswap act like its rich when its not?
Riddle me this - you are saying this proposal will save Sushiswap. Well, what if it kills it? What if the runway simply wont be there? You lose people’s trust only once. Why take the risk now?
The quality of your proposal is EXCEPTIONALLY poor for a person who is getting compensated 1M USD per year.
I have to reiterate the fact that your post has been crafted to exploit sensationalism and urgency. There is no data, there is no concrete evidence outlining why such a huge change should occur. Heck! Why should the change occur even now?? It could happen 10 months down the road right?
We are assuming by that time you would have brought value to the project so there should be no problem with delaying it.
Jared, I think its time to start thinking about stepping down. Clearly, there is a mismatch between what would be best for you and what would be best for the project. Im sorry.
Starting to repeat myself so perhaps this is the last time. XSushi was supposed to be a mechanism to stimulate demand for the $sushi token. It clearly has not done so. Looking at the 1yr chart: XSushi supply was 54-60m & now it’s 48-52m. This is all while price has fallen from $6-$10 to $1-$2. It has failed as a mechanism to stimulate buy pressure of the token.
No investor is chasing the yield.
A “stickyness” is not the intent. Some dead wallets that get served sushi is not the point. The mechanism does not benefit buyers, LP’ers, or price support. Some LP fumes being swapped into $SUSHI isn’t doing anything for the protocol.
Price has declined 80%+, and XSUSHI supply has slowly dwindled 10-15%. It’s not stimulating demand pressure. Similarly, only 20% of $SUSHI is being staked. What other heuristic are you using aside from “hmm i like getting my free $sushi?”
I believe you mean well Pocketsquare, but this idea to keep a dividend mechanism that doesn’t stimulate demand for the asset & siphons away cash that can be used for better purposes is insane.
“…I make 500k, voted for by the community for all candidates during the Head Chef search. I did not negotiate any terms. I get vested tokens once price targets are met over a 30-day TWAP, starting at $3. On day 1, I returned the 250k severance pkg to Treasury.”
What if it doesn’t kill Sushi and builds up the Treasury to help the project succeed?
Again more generalizations - how can you assume the dividend mechanism doesnt stimulate demand for SUSHI? I enjoy holding sushi for the yield. I have told anyone i talk to about crypto that I hold SUSHI because the yield is generated directly from cash flow from operations. Without that, i might as well sell SUSHI and go buy one of the larger exchanges like UNI for defi exposure in my overall portfolio.
And again, i can fully appreciate the maturity curve of businesses and that capital return generally is not something at the early stages that most entities engage in, so perhaps there is a case to be made that more revenue from operations should be directed to the treasury but I have yet to hear you guys make a solid proposal with facts, data, roadmaps, etc
Why not bring it down to 150k? Is it too much to sacrifice? Once again, Im gonna make a jab here and say it sounds like, “Oh ma dollars” talk here. The community should take a hit for the “uncertain” future to ensure your future salary IS certain…classic conflict of interest. Textbook-style case. Nobody wants you to work for free, but the community can only pay so much until it stops making sense to pay at all.
Sure, but what if it does? What then? This is like playing a slot machine saying, “What if we hit a jackpot?”. I bet a lot of gamblers go in with this type of mentality. Out with a bunch of money? Not so many. You are falling victim to a common fallacy. You need to ALWAYS make sure proposal does less harm than good first. Intentions are good, but outcomes are the ones which count. You are playing around with the fundamental core idea which made Sushiswap attractive in the first place. Want to make sure you have 0 chance to compete against Uniswap? Sure, piss your community off and see how you fare against an oponent which has 10x more money and more market share. All you have is people and you are ready to risk it. It’s ironic how you think this would ensure continuity when in fact it might do the exact opposite!
I’d reconsider it if I were you. Self-reflexion helps a ton.
The ability to acquire more of the fee derived yield…has gotten cheaper. AKA sushi is cheaper I can buy tons, stake it, and own a greater % of the yield generated. This is not a generalization this is the mechanism. It has not happened. I linked the supply of xsushi. relative to price decline. What is confusing you?
My friend, you are throwing out alot of figures that are driven more by the macroeconomic environment and turmoil caused by the previous team. These should not be used for a justification to redirect funds to treasury. Xsushi supply has gone down because the broader crypto market and global economy is going down, how do you know that Xsushi is not the catalyst that has kept sushi price from tanking to $0…people have dumped sushi because of the past team and the global economy slowdown, not to mention VC money that was likely dumping. While yes the team could increase treasury by redirecting funds from protocol fees have you considered what impact redirecting those fees would have on price of the SUSHI token? 100% of protocol fees to treasury diminishes the value prop SUSHI provides IMO.
Have you and your team considered laying out what runway for the project looks like at different payout ratios? Currently proposal is a 10x of current protocol fees being directed to treasury. What does 50% payout ratio to treasury look like while still maintaining xsushi yield and the only value proposition the token provides. My fear is we do this at 100% payout ratio and get into a bull market where all the new money is doing their research looking for yield-bearing assets and they bypass buying in. I understand bolstering the treasury needs to be done. Our sushi to stable ratio is asinine but removing the value prop of protocol fees being directed to xsushi holders could also drastically diminish the $ value of sushi holdings in treasury. Just some thoughts!