[WITHDRAWN] Kanpai: Treasury Increase to 100% for 1-year

WITHDRAWN: Increase Kanpai Treasury Allocation to 100% ASAP

This proposal has been withdrawn to take into consideration the feedback from the community discussion to help make it more focused and time-specific. I’ll repost a new draft version later this coming week for us to discuss that considers the great amount of feedback provided.

Over the past couple of weeks as Head Chef, a large portion of my upcoming revitalization plan involves analyzing the operational and budgetary expenses and liabilities to maintain the team’s unencumbered operation and scalability. After reviewing present expenditures, it’s clear that a significant deficit in the operations treasury threatens to upend Sushi and needs addressing now.

Currently, Sushi requires an annual runway of approximately 9M USD to compensate developer talent, operations personnel, infrastructure, marketing, and incidentals. The current treasury balance provides a challenge for scaling the team and helping to build and expand the Sushi ecosystem into a profitable business model. In addition, the liquid operational expense account now extends only through the Summer of 2023, which poses a significant challenge to Sushi’s operations and sustainability.

The good news is we have a clear opportunity to increase Kanpai to 100% of protocol fees and redirect them entirely back to the Treasury to help fund innovation, return LPs, and return the protocol to a competitive level.

I propose a multi-step strategy to provide capital for Sushi to increase its operational reserves. Unfortunately, few immediate options offer an alternative to monetize the Sushi brand, infrastructure, and product suite to produce meaningful revenue, which is the focus of my long-term vision to revitalize Sushi. Similarly, new technological innovations that may positively impact the operations treasury will require added developer resources we currently do not possess. Therefore, increasing our operational runway now is imperative to the long-term viability of Sushi. For example, the current fees that redirect to the Sushi bar represent an approximate annual revenue of 5M USD value. The remainder of our runway comprises business development deals, which we plan to scale.

Won’t new tokenomics provide value that can fund Sushi development? Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of time to institute new tokenomics that may provide an alternative to this Kanpai increase proposal. Tokenomics are a dynamic and multi-faceted aspect of any protocol. And while many competent and intelligent people are discussing how to restructure Sushi’s current token economy best, providing operational runway matters most right now.

Tl:dr; The current operational runway for Sushi needs to increase now, and the most straightforward and quickest way is to increase the treasury allocation portion of Kanpai from 10% to 100% for 1-year to provide approximately 5M worth of value to the Treasury and provide time to restructure tokenomics and explore additional revenue generation opportunities.

EDIT: I propose we amend the xSushi fee to the Treasury multisig, not the Operations multisig. My goal isn’t to centralize control of the funds but to make them available for operations; however, not at the expense of governance oversight. As a further oversight metric, I propose that the 1-year fee disbursement be broken up into quarterly budget requests reviewed by the Treasury multisig.

  • Yes - Increase Treasury Allocation to 100% in Kanpai
  • No - Do Not Increase Treasury Allocation to 100% in Kanpai

0 voters


yes, but then one year is gone and then what?
Kanpai is not enough to operate on under your numbers so then it would also require there to be curtain milestones in order to even have runway afterwords.

also is there a vote at the one year mark to extend this?

1 Like

Hi Xulian, this is a short-term solution to a long-term problem; you’re right. We’ll need the time it affords to release the products we believe will offer positive net gain for the protocol. And to provide time to correctly vet and release the best new tokenomics to bring value to token holders and the treasury. Also, we can leave it open-ended for a vote review at 1-year if that’s what the community wants.

1 Like

You misunderstood the result of that poll. A 95% payout ratio (Fees - Payout Ratio = Treasury) translates into only 5% of xSUSHI fees going to the treasury. Also the Kanpai proposal specified that these funds would be delivered to the Treasury not the Operations multisig. This would undoubtedly increase centralization and reduce both competition for grants and transparency, not to mention an obscure bloated budget.


Can you justify why the Sushi operational budget requires 9M per year? Redirecting all fees from holders to support an obscure budget seems like a slow rug…


To echo some of the comments here. I think the term Treasury is getting mixed up. To my understanding there’s a Treasury multisig and an Operational multisig. This proposal seems to suggest diverting all xSUSHI fees to the Operational multisig and side stepping the Treasury multisig completely. That’s a no from me.


The operations budget spreadsheet is public. Do you need the link? All operations expenses are tracked there and available for review.

What would be the optimal solution you would find amiable for investors? 100% to Treasury, then budget proposals quarterly voted and disbursed to Operations?

Seems like Sushi is going the way of centralized company and all its regulatory troubles. This proposal gives Jared an absolute carte blanche that can sidestep all future governance since now he can control the power of the purse exclusively. If that’s what holders want, sure, but long live Sushi.

1 Like

You’re right. My apologies for misreading that portion of the previous proposal. Would amending the proposal to direct fees to the Treasury multisig with quarterly budget requests from Operations make this more aligned with community standards?

xSushi is entirely broken and requires an upgrade (evolution). No utilization for idle $sushi, in bear markets incentives suggests the distributed sushi is simply sold & does not drive demand, in bull markets the apy leaves a lot to be desired. Not multi chain etc.

Can’t expect to R&D and become a market leader with the best of them (Uni, FTX, 1inch, etc.) on a relatively shoestring budget.

This is not a new unique insight to be honest every leader or project that has dug into to improve the state of sushi has realized xsushi payouts have perverse incentives that inhibit sushi’s ability to R&d and get ahead.

Without raising VC, or breaking/rewriting tokenokics (a huge risk) the xsushi mechanism is the best way to improve the financial health of the project.

Improving the financial health of the project should come first and foremost & this is the best way to do it.

That is not what I’m trying to accomplish at all. I’m trying to communicate the dire need of the state of the project to holders and the fact that when it runs out of funds, what then?


To me money shouldn’t go directly to Ops, but I am in support of seeing a larger share of the fees going to the treasury for the future

Do wanna second that I think funding for long term ambitions is quite limited with current reserves and revenue coming in as well


No need to speak down to the forum, many of us have been here since the start. The treasury is stocked as with most protocol treasuries. There have been many calls in the past to actually come up with a comprehensive grant system to disburse these funds to the best teams. This is how Bentobox, Kashi, Miso, Shoyu all expanded the ecosystem.

What Jared is proposing and what you specifically Neil are trying to lecture this forum are that the financial health of Sushi = the financial health of the operational multisignature. This has never been the case. The protocol will persist with or without the operational multisig and I believe there have been calls to disband this group. If the Operational team is bloated and unable to carry on, find another thats more competitive / cost effective. That has always been the precedent from when the Operational multisignature was formed. This is an attempt at more centralization from those who continue to view Sushi as a company and are unable to rationalize it any other way.

1 Like

Yes, it seems I should have worded the proposal differently. However, I’m not advocating we forfeit Treasury’s oversight. Happy to find a balance, so the fees provide a holistic effect for everyone.

1 Like

Those calls to disband the ops multisig were heavily uninformed, there’s a reason why it’s called that - it’s paramount to the operations of the project.

We’re very far from the world in which an ops multisig is not needed.

Sure don’t disband, but make meaningful steps towards decentralization. Sushi has always been a multi-team format. Centralize and invite the regulatory problems Uniswap has. If holders are willing to go down this path so be it

1 Like

Doesn’t take 9m to make protocol updates. Masterchef should be decentralized by now.

Our treasury position is 1% of Uniswaps. Not to mention the couple other hundred million they’ve raised in venture financing.

This is totally false.

The financial health of project is treasury’s ability to fund R&d and ongoing innovation. Otherwise you become a dinosaur and go extinct. In this case the 3m ish being paid out to xsushi holders isn’t a mechanism to drive buying pressure as originally intended so it’s better off being diverted to the treasury for a healthier balance sheet.

Treasury doesn’t seem like it will run out of funds. Each team needs to handle it own budget, not completely cannibalize the treasury on a whim. The general environment has suffered a lot of layoffs - xSUSHI and the treasury doesnt exist to bailout the operational multisig for soon tm. Also what happened to xSUSHI staking analytics at analytics.sushi[dot]com? Curious this was deprecated. I read above about the budget being public, could you share the link here?

1 Like