Hey, first of all, congrats on being the new head chef !
I mean, there are, in a lot of countries, a lot of legal implications if you are the owner of a key who control the treasury.
If you have the keys, you can be " legally accountable " for a lot of things.
Example here :
More recently, we have seen the legislation being harder against DEX and the fact that Sushi is earning fees from the protocol is clearly a way for regulator to call us " centralized ". If I remember correctly, that’s one of the reason of why Uniswap don’t earn fees from volume and didn’t activate this option.
That’s why, as far I know, a lot of former ( and not former ) core team members living in USA have been removed from the multisig. I can remember some internal discussions about this situation to avoid some risks.
So the question : Is a multisig signer legally accountable for sushi actions ? and if yes, do they have a legal protection from Sushi ?
Glad atleast your honest with numbers atleast as far as i can tell but god damn what a slap in the face to every person out there busting their ass to put food on the table.
This is a fair concern @GoldenNaim - and something I think about myself.
As we have seen unpredictable regulatory rulings towards DAOs, it is best to consider the legal implications imposed on signers; because of this we must be willing to compensate for their risk.
I applaud the willingness of community members to step up and advocate for higher compensation.
After discussions with the community on how to manage a fluctuating USD amount in SUSHI tokens, it would be challenging to maintain and monitor this, plus introduces point where there may need to be more or less SUSHI added, or the stream would need to stop all together, thus presenting incentive issues.
Proposing a 10,000 USDC stream through Furo for each signer.
These streams are to be started and managed by Sushi Operations for simplicity and coordination.