[WITHDRAWN] Kanpai: Treasury Increase to 100% for 1-year

yeah, there just definitely needs to be clarity on timelines.
and clarity on what needs to happen during those timelines. Otherwise it can be real fast to dig sushi into a hole.

Businesses require cash flows currently none exist aside from Kanpai & emissions. Emissions are ending.

Natural inflection point in the project. Has nothing to do with making sure sushi has paid contributors instead of unpaid volunteers. (Which was obviously a good thing per 2.0 — project would’ve been extinct had it been left to volunteer efforts).

Sushi requires an evolution of the business model xsushi deprecation is a temporary first step in what likely has to be a series of initiatives to evolve sushi….if you don’t evolve you get left behind and go extinct.

Anything ASAP seems forced. This is like the head of the BOE telling pension funds to rebalance in 3 days. This proposal doesn’t give any analysis on what will happen to xSUSHI stakers when there is no yield and they are exposed to absolute delta (in volatile markets). If all xSUSHI stakers rotate out into stables we’ll see:

  1. less governance participation (more centralization)
  2. probably a tank wiping out recent gains
  3. decrease the treasury further (since its all in sushi).

I think a lot of comments here also have asked where this 9m number comes from. Curious as well why the current runway can’t be supported at 6m annually, which seems enough from ops and treasury. Or why can’t governance just find a new team? Either way like a short term raid that will make the treasury irrelevant (since even if the fees are sent to treasury and not ops, which is a big red flag, the impact on sushi price may be irrecoverable and make the treasury irrelevant).


Uniswap doesn’t generate any protocol level cashflows. Seems like this is operational multisig issue, not an urgent protocol issue.

They raise venture capital…would you like that?

[Sushi 2.0: A Restructure For The Road Ahead - #64 by BoringCrypto]

Precisely, it was left out while we were voting on the package you negotiated. It’s negligent business wise and the community pointed this out multiple times during the process and followed up with pocketsquare’s 2.1 proposal, then boring’s transparency snapshot vote.

If management allocate an unsustainable amount of funds to their packages, it begs questions about their suitability to make these calls.

1 Like

Some food for thought since this proposal stoked some controversy and piqued my attention once again on the discourse. Sushi prides itself on serving exotic long tail assets, this is fundamentally why people use the protocol, yet it seems its taking steps in the opposite direction: more centralization, naming a us-based(?) ceo, talking about cashflows like operations multisig is a company, all which makes the product untenable. Unless Sushi proves its product market fit in another dimension, then it should decentralize further in order to allow continued accessibility to exotic long tail assets. We’ve already seen the way Uniswap is going and Sushi as has been said is behind in that game - so why play it? Stick to what makes Sushi great.


See my post above. You’re trying to frame cashflow like Uniswap while also saying don’t be like Uniswap. Pick one. If the operational multisig is indeed a company and Jared is CEO of that company that services Sushi protocol, then that company can access outside capital. Don’t mix the treasury/DAO with the issues of ops. The problem has always been when ops tries to access treasury funds or mandates unilaterally as whats happening now. Raise venture capital…sure, but on behalf of whom? Not the dao or treasury or “Sushi”, but ops sure.

This article is widely incorrect. There is no protocol level fee (going to Uniswap Labs) on Uniswap pools, come on Jared you’re supposed to be the CEO of Sushi and know this basic stuff. Uniswap Labs sits on the Uni Token


After reading the proposal, I’m not immediately against it. We have to take actions to expand runway and investment in the protocol.

Although, my budgeting experience has always come with reducing costs and increasing revenue. Have we reviewed which costs in the operational treasury are unnecessary? Have we tried to eliminate those costs? Where do we have bloated operational expenses?

Just by virtue of the setup, I have to imagine there are some expenses that are not producing and need to be cut.

This was a fine use case upon release 2 years ago. Given the evolution of aggregators & protocol Dex’s this is no longer true. You’re wanting to adhere to a 2yr old playbook. Aggregators & protocol dex’s have changed the landscape so sushi needs to evolve too.

Complete non sequitur, a US based chef and talking about treasury cash flows is certainly not making the product untenable.

Would love to hear what viable alternatives you see as possible for the project.

I agree with this - this proposal comes with no considerations to reduce costs or increase revenue or the impact to xSUSHI. It simply stokes a sense of urgency in an attempt to divert 100% of fees away from stakers. I think empirically in bear markets when a protocol doesn’t do what its supposed to do (dex fees to stakers - nobody else does that), price goes down another leg.

What’s the difference between UNI token and SUSHI token if this proposal goes through? Even worse we don’t have VCs to hold a floor.


That doesn’t mean get rid of tokenomics all together kek


Here’s what you said about runway. [Sushi 2.0: A Restructure For The Road Ahead - #13 by SCNightshade]

Now here we are being asked for all the sushi basically. Two man compensation committee was a terrible idea. Especially because of the sparse experience in treasury management and finance amongst the two members.


Surpised there hasn’t been one horse comment. Good job everyone.


Sure. And that’s what this forum is for and what a treasury grant process is for. And what sushi-style decentralization is for. Where were you when Onsen, Bentobox, Kashi, Miso, Shoyu were brought up here and implemented by the community? Maybe you should revisit those proposals and hwo they built up Sushi. Or has the protocol recessed to following Neil’s little red playbook about cashflow to ops to support purely ops ideas? Blank check is what this proposal sounds like. Insulated idea and silicon valley-esque “I know better” is what this discussion sounds like.

Let’s keep it professional, please. Your comment provides zero value to the conversation at hand.

And don’t get me wrong. A US based Chef with US persons treating “Sushi” like their new company is what makes this untenable. What happens when men in grey suits come knocking asking you to restrict the interface as they’ve done with Uniswap?

The top question before budgets, before revenue, before cashflows should be how has Sushi become more decentralized. There is a 3 yr window for tokens to prove decentralization, you’re in the final year and going the opposite direction.

Regardless of the horse hint, he/she/they/them brings up a good point. If this proposal goes through what is the difference between UNI and SUSHI token?

1 Like

Hello Jebica, you are not correct. Miso, Kashi, Onsen, SushiPro etc. none of those initiatives contribute to the bottom line. What revenue or token value or activity is coming from those grant funded products ? The answer is 0.

If I am mistaken please let me know.