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.

---- NEW EDITS, OCT 6, 2022 ----
An ongoing list of members can be formulated in an additional proposal to have a running queue of signers who are interested in joining the Multisig in the event that others wish to step off. To select additional signers, a poll can be created in a proposal to select the signers before going to Snapshot. The running list of signers can be tallied in a Forum post that can be created after the Multisig Snapshot has completed.

Signers will have a review period, where the activity of each signer will be gauged, to see if they are still active, engaged, or interested in remaining on the Multisig. Even in the event that they did not sign, being active and reviewing transactions should be enough for them to remain in good standing. The goal here is to avoid having passive signers, and to ensure the integrity of each transaction to be signed.

Should any Multisig signer, for any of the proposed reasons above no longer remain on the Multisig, the remaining signers can petition the community in a Forum post, where they can state who will no longer be on the multisig, and propose the reasons why. This Forum post should remain active for 1 week, and every effort should be made from those who are not to continue on the multisig to address their resignation to the community in the post, or if unresponsive due to lack of activity, an attempt to make contact through reasonable mediums needs to be made to ensure they have time to respond before removing them. A Poll will be created in the Forum post for the replacement(s) from the queue of additional signers interested in joining. After a successful poll, the highest in favour can go to a Snapshot vote, where the new signer can then be brought on to the Multisig.

After feedback from the Forum calls, it is also proposed to increase the compensation to 10,000 USDC Annually streamed through Furo to each signer. Streams to be started and managed by Sushi Operations for simplicity and coordination.

TL;DR on the edits made Oct 6, 2022:

  • Have an ongoing list of potential Multisig signers in a queue
  • Added a review process of 3 months for signers activity and engagement
  • Added in a process for off-boarding signers and onboarding new ones
  • Proposing there be a range for compensation

TL;DR on the edits made Oct 27, 2022:

  • 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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


I agree with everything @nickjrishwain is saying.

In addition, regulation by enforcement is here and staying. These signer/board roles are putting themselves in the line of fire. They should be fairly compensated and Sushi should also promise to protect them as best as possible.

Sushi needs to figure out proactively what its approach is going to be and should act now. Yes, that includes the legal entity and indemnification, but it also includes taking a complete view of everything, especially product strategy and decentralization. Sushi needs to form a point of view on whether and how to comply and what that means for the product.

What are the options for decentralization and what’s sufficiently decentralized for compliance purposes? Could even the front end be decentralized by having users download code and run it themselves in an electron app or something similar? What else is possible? What risks are the signers/board members/team willing to accept?

I have no answers, but I want to recommend that Sushi and the new Head Chef dedicate serious resources to this and quickly.


Updated the original Forum post based on feedback from the community discussions and Forum. All edits have been contained to provide clarity.


Hey all,

Just asked around a bit in the Sushi forum #99 if community members can also be signers instead of high-profile crypto experts.

As my motivation, I would say that for example myself: I always read a lot on the forum but rarely post as I’m not a giga-brain. I do vote with my POWAH even though I’m not the biggest holder by far.

I’m also very active in the discord and care a lot about Sushi as a whole, as I truly see the future potential in it.

So my question is, can “simple” community members that are not high-profile crypto bigbrains, but that do have a big interest in Sushi succeeding in the coming years, also take a bit of care of the protocol and help with signing for example?

If this would be a possibility, I would love to sign myself up as a nominee for helping out and getting things done with signing the multisig! :slight_smile:


Hey guys.
The true question is : What is the legal implication ?


Hey, what do you mean?