Updated Treasury Multisig Signers


Over the past 2 years of Sushi, there have been various individuals on the multisig. Currently some of the users on the Multisig have become busy with other projects, or no longer have the bandwidth or interest to contribute.


As the signing and execution of the multisig is absolutely crucial to the DAO, it is proposed to replace others with new signers who can be actively engaged.


The following is the list of the signers proposed to sit on the Multisig. They are all actively involved in the crypto and Web3 space.

Mable Jian - Growing @Stepnofficial | Host of HODLong 后浪 podcast | Mentor at @tangent_xyz | ex-@multicoincap |


0xSami - Founder of Redacted Carte. Currently on multisigs for several projects including Butterfly, New Order, Olympus, and Aura, and Esketit.

Nick Rishwain - Building and launching on-chain real estate protocol, operator in legal technology Web2 space.


ChopChop - Core contributor @NFTX_, member of @dcv_capital


Maki - Previous Head Chef at Sushi. Contributor at LayerZero, Stargate, and Aura.


Tom Lombardi - Adjunct professor at Pepperdine University teaching Decentralized Finance. Former Managing Director 3iQ ($700m AUM crypto ETFs) | Former Director at Wave Financial ($1bn AUM crypto treasury management) | Investment banking at BankofAmerica

DeFiTed - Founder and lead on ParagonsDAO, prev RULER and COVER (wound down and returned funds to token holders), PleasrDAO founder and founder of the Crypto Safe Space Mental health discord


As being a multisig signer does require due diligence, efforts, and time, it is proposed that signers should be compensated for their efforts. It is also proposed that all new wallets will be funded with a small amount of ETH (0.2 ETH) in order to have the wallets ready to sign once they are added.


Update the Sushi Treasury Signers?
  • Update to this new list
  • No thank you
  • IDK - Abstain

0 voters

Should signers receive SUSHI as compensation? How much annually?
  • 2,500 SUSHI
  • 5,000 SUSHI
  • 7,500 SUSHI
  • 10,000 SUSHI
  • None

0 voters


Looks like a solid list of candidates.


Happy to see Nick on there.
If all the job entailed was clicking the confirm button, I might vote zero comp.
But signers actively need to be simulating transactions, double checking what they are signing and where it is going to.
The signers need to be of a certain tier to retain trust, and their time is of value.
Hopefully it is clear, at least what I expect from them.

1 Like

This isn’t just about the administration of clicking buttons and test transactions, and goes beyond being trustworthy, it’s also about risk and liability of being on the multi-sig. Is that person the equivalent of an officer or director? We’re not sure yet. Can we get them insurance? I doubt it. So, the compensation should cover that risk.


Fwiw, the reason I’ve held strong to the compensation piece is I think it is terribly important for us to have multi-sig signers who are incentivized and care about Sushi’s future. Those individuals should be compensated for their time.

There will be more messages, more communications, more due diligence. I had previously recommended a number of approximately $1,000 per month. Signers do not get wealthy, but are recognized for the efforts and encouraged to stay engaged. Offering the compensation in SUSHI is better towards incentivizing and keeping committed to a positive future. Assuming it goes up in value, the compensation can be significant. There is the alternative: SUSHI going down in value.

Further, I view a multi-signer position as similar to a board position (or what could be co-opted into a board position). We should be looking for people who expect to do more than just click buttons for this position. Can they offer more? How do we encourage them to offer more to grow Sushi?

Finally, and not of least importance, there is a liability issue. Control over the treasury comes with the potential for significant personal risk. I’m limiting this by creating an LLC. But Sushi does not offer professional insurance (errors and omission nor directors and officers liability insurance). Multi-sig signers may be on their own if someone decides to sue.

We are not afraid to compensate our Head Chef generously. But the multi-sig signers may be taking on significant risk for little reward. I expect we’ll be taking on more responsibility as well.

These are the items I’ve factored in with regards to what I believe to be an appropriate compensation level for the role.


Thanks, Maka. Happy to be considered. Hope I can provide some value beyond clicking buttons and do expect it to be more time consuming and of greater importance than clicking confirm. Think it is good to have signers who are invested in properly administering the treasury.

Agree entirely. As a maturing DEX, we have to be aware of the real world. And a real world within a bad market. When people like to blame others for losses.


Good point about multi-sig being like a board position.

1 Like

Honestly, this list feels like a slap in my face. So many people on the forum and the discord knew about my attempts to put a notice on the fact that the current signers are not active enough for this DAO.

I am advocating a change in signers since the passing of the TOKE proposal because the implementation of the proposal took too much time. Even on the last proposal on the rotation of the signer I was an active member of the DAO and suggest some people that are very active members of this community to be signers. See link to see my suggestion of signers and the original proposal:

No one of the people I propose got selected, and I highly doubt they were even considered. Even, after the comment on the forum, I was discussing it in the discord and suggested people that could be possible signers (when a CORE member of sushi asked to name a few possible signers).

I also dislike the fact that the procedure of the selection is not communicated to the DAO as a whole (at least not to my knowledge).

I expected more from you @Tangle, and I personally hate that I am writing such a negative comment on a proposal on a sushi member that I respect.

1 Like

Totally agreed that multi-signers are actually the board members or trustees. Independent board members for companies at certain scale are usually paid 10k-30k USD p.a.

2.5k is way too underpaid and would create an adverse selection effect.

However, if multi-signers are like board members, then I guess multi-signers should also commit more on the governance and supervision. Any good idea on that?

1 Like

I have not yet formed any good ideas on it. Personally, depending on compensation decided, I would expect to play a more active role (within authority of a trustee/board member). Helpful whenever the core team, head chef, and samurai are in need of assistance without being in the way. Essentially acting in an advisory capacity.

Have taken a couple days of unplugging but thinking about your comment. Specifically, the item that caught my attention was:

This is probably something we should look at if the process was not transparent. We had some similar issues regarding transparency in choosing a head chef, and we came back and corrected that process.

I do not believe selection of multisig participants has to be run as in-depth as the Head Chef position. But transparency is important to the governance experiment we’re all participating in.

1 Like

Glad to see this proposal coming through.

I am curious though if we could take this proposal a step further, and maybe try to establish a little of a process for treasury members going forward.

This way if something were to come up like one member wanting to leave or someone not having as much time in the future, then we’d have something to follow on the transition.


I would support this. Sounds like you’re thinking an onboarding and off-boarding process for multisig?

Would imagine any multisig signer could propose their removal at any time. That would make sense. Assuming they don’t make the proposal themselves, we’d need to have some process in place.

As I’m seeing it right now, I may have to respectfully bow out. I’m not sure the compensation will be worth the potential liability.

But a transparent process for most positions should be supported.

I too support this - it sounds similar to a CU facilitator off-boarding in Maker.

One limitation is fully replacing these members requires two separate votes (Off-boarding & Onboarding), increasing the total vote load and placing more burden on voters.

I would advocate for a replacement-style proposal where signing duty can be transitioned to their predecessor in a single vote.

This allows for more speed and prevents an old signer from becoming disenfranchised; they must help identify a proper fit for the DAO first.

1 Like