Sushi DAO Restructure Proposal

Thanks Alex!

With the details you gave, I think this new structure makes sense!

1 Like

Just as product managers and department heads are responsible for setting KPIs (and there should be public dashboards showing how different products are tracking to KPIs) there should also be KPIs or OKRs set for the council which is ratified by a community vote. Teams should also be granted options linked to KPIs so they are rewarded when KPIs are met or exceeded.

Should there be a team building and maintaining global analytics for sushi?

Anything technical that is not a smart contract falls under the responsibilities of the front-end? They would be responsible for creating and maintaining caching infrastructure such as subgraphs, decentralized file storage integrations and developing non-smart contract protocols which seems like it could be the case with Multichain if not other products as the roadmap matures?

It seems like there could be a need for a backend focused engineer perhaps initially cross-team if there is not sufficient need on any one team.

Thanks @Alex17 and @decanus. I think this is critical for Sushi and it sets an important precedent for all other DAOs. I voted yes on the proposal because it promotes a scalable structure.

Some of my thoughts:

  • I like the OSC Levels framework. The product teams also make sense to me, and I think its important that we had the Core Team help on the structure. If new leaders think we need to shift things around to operate effectively, then I would be OK with that (they know more about the inner workings of the protocol then I do). I also like the fact that Operational multisig group is elected by the community.

  • I love the Community Selected Council/Do’ers and I think elected community members are the future of DAOs. I think this structure will provide oversight, efficiency, and transparency. I imagine the Council members will be compensated to a reasonable extent?

This Council sounds a lot like a Board of Directors at a publicly-traded corporation. I’m sure that just ran chills down some people’s spine, but I think it is good structure. Remember, Board of Directors were implemented because public companies grew so large and attracted so many small investors that it was impossible to manage a sustainable governance process. Shareholders began electing board members to act on behalf of their interests…I think this is what is happening to DAOs and I think implementing “elected” members that represent the community is the right approach.

Our process improves on the BOD structure since the community directly elects ANY nominee in a vote, as opposed to corporate BODs, were other directors have to nominate new incumbents first (creating a “circle jerk” :slightly_smiling_face:) and large institutional investors control the election outcome.



Somewhere in this restructure, unless I’ve missed it, would like to mention or reiterate that Sushi will suffer without a CFO or, at the very least, an accountant, who is dedicated to managing funds and processing payments. With the amount of contributors that Sushi has that on monthly invoicing and the new revenue streams from Sushi’s products, this is no longer sustainable as a side task by a core team member.

Would also like to see a Head of HR that can manage relationships within the team(s), along with onboarding/offboarding and salary/bonus structure, etc. We’ve seen that without a safe place to turn, many team members have voiced their frustrations to Twitter/Discord, which could be better handled through grievances with an HR representative. That is only a small example as to why an HR person is really lacking, but there are other, more obvious reasons to have someone take that role within the organization.


The managers of each department could handle on/offboarding and team concerns. I think the idea behind this proposal is that the council will act as a sort of HR to manage any escalated internal situations, approve bonuses, etc. Sushi might need another “Operations” department with people like an accountant, lawyers, payroll managers, etc.


I agree with @ayoki , thats basically why i suggested the structure above with a full c-suite governed by a community elected Board Of Directors who should have some sort of multisig authority over the c-suite so that if the BoD doesnt think a strategic change is in the best interest of the community they can block it via multisig and if the community doesnt like what the BoD is allowing thru, they can vote out the BoD

Would love to get @Alex17 's thoughts on this route.



Quick Update! Spending time today working on an updated/final? draft of the proposal with a lot of the ideas in the comments and ideas from the Samurai proposal. Will post it at the bottom of the forum when it is finished. Thank you all who have provided ideas on how to improve the proposal!


Thank you for your answer @Alex17 !

The entity and all legal issues are top priority for me.
I agree that compartmentalized each team and skill by product will really help Sushi to grow faster.

I’m really happy to read each comment here.
It shows the community is still here, and we all want the same goal : the success of Sushi.

I think we are extremely close to find a final structure.
I would love to see a snapshot who will start in 10 days.


tl;dr - needs focus on budget and compensation as foundation, its a bit in the weeds.

This should be secondary. I think first figure out compensation, next budget. Then budget will feed into this entity. The purpose of the entity to be to interface with cefi. Pay for marketing based on the budget, pay for opex based on budget, etc.

This is fine, I would love to have more active multisig holders. I’d recommend a lighter operational one for the team which has several months of operational capital as a separate wallet.

I refer to my first comment for this one

The budget is most foundational imo

Happy to help out with this (if help is needed), have seen a lot of these, and have setup a few.


I agree there is a need for both a finance team and an HR team in this proposal. Both of these teams can work directly with the heads of each team and individuals on the teams. It would allow for additional oversight and take unnecessary tasks away from team heads. I feel many of the heads are taking on responsibilities they should not. Having these additional teams would allow other teams to have a more specific focus.

I feel the structure looks great. Just to add to this

  1. Define a Primary Owner and a Secondary owner for each Project and atleast 3 people onboarded on a Project for code reviews.
  2. Among every 8-10 developers there should be a Staff Engineer.
  3. The Staff Engineer and Product Manager should manage the scrum.
  4. Prioritization for features should be done Quarterly by community while prioritization of bugs and issues should be with staff engineer.
  5. Features should not just be community driven but the owners vote is also important in shaping up the project. They work more closely than anyone else and their vote should be higher.
  6. Have a quaterly rotation of developers among projects if they are not happy with their projects. Make sure both primary and secondary owner of a project stay on the project at any given point in time.
  7. Stock compensation is something thats always present in bigger companies like Amazon, Facebook, Google and its a good way to keep workforce more motivated.

Ok, so now we have a Arca proposal, a Samurai proposal, a Dani proposal and a bunch of other options in between. If all these just put one party/person forward that will implement this proposal + anyone else who has a proposal and we can vote on who the community wants to go forward with… wouldn’t that be grand? This is why I create the interim CEO proposal. This is not a competing proposal, but more of a META proposal. The longer we wait the more different ways will pop up to take Sushi forward, and even existing proposal will start to splinter into sub-proposals with different factions, different ideas. So why not open it up and allow ANYONE to propose a way forward (including a party or person that will implement this way forward) and let the community decide the way forward…


finally some sane reasoning and perspective

totally agree, in fact brb.

We can see this as an opportunity to grow definitely future proof - some amazing thoughts in this thread - really rethinking of how best to manage Sushi as a DAO

Would it be worthwhile to hire an advisor who is an expert in corporate governance - and bounce ideas from best practices in current corporations in the process of restructuring the DAO? Just a thought.


I completely agree.

Not sure if we need a corporate governance advisor before we need leadership. Basically, we need to keep the devs working on their actual work. We need leadership who can drive that forward.

Do think a governance advisor would be something that should be handled after we get some respected leadership. By respected leadership, I don’t necessarily mean the loudest personality.


Great proposal! Does sum up all strategically and operationally important aspects of DAO governance! This may have a lasting impact for DAO governance models in the coming days

I put more meat on the fire. This article seems very interesting to me.
The appointment of delegates, control and analysis “done by the system” is a different point of view that in my opinion is worth thinking about at least 10 minutes.

1 Like

Brethren – shall we revive this proposal?