[Withdrawn] Sushi Phantom Troupe - Strategic Raise

To be quite frank, what’s the logic behind doing a strategic raise, giving a rough 30% discount to these hedgefunds, for them to possibly dump the tokens which hurts the protocol and price? To put it bluntly, these investors will not contribute anything significant in terms of development wise, to SUSHI. As Clearwood stated, “investors should be chosen by their strategic non financial contributions and their alignment with SushiSwap’s mission.”
Hence I can’t really see this any other way than raising funds at an unnecessary aggressive rate, the benefits of the fund raising are not clear. ( As to how it will help SUSHI in the long run )
SUSHI treasury already has a substantial amount to last a bear market and there was a discussion recently, about changing the xSUSHI’s structure to include a percentage of the yield that goes to the SUSHI treasury ( to further build up the treasury funds for a long bear market ).
To summarise I don’t see the point of going after additional funds this aggressively, is the team that in need of funds?
To do a strategic raise of this size after SUSHI has been around for quite sometime
( many see SUSHI as a bluechip already ), and essentially selling SUSHI at a 30% discount to investors, who won’t contribute anything significant ( in terms of development ) and will almost certainly sell their sushi regardless of price once the vesting is up, causing a huge supply outflow ( judging by the size of this fundraise proposal plus the 30% discount), is NOT a good idea.


I echo concerns raised above. Two other, IMO, downsides of proposal are 1) substantial dilution of staking rewards (adding ~13mm xSushi to the current ~9mm currently staked) and 2) concentrating voting power at discount (h/t.

To suggest a few alternatives, anyone willing to convert treasury sushi to xsushi for benefit of venture should be willing to do so for benefit of treasury.

Treasury can use this xSushi to either generate cash flow and invest yield in diversified income streams and/or take advantage of Aave to tap into equity and invest in diversified income streams.

In short, I don’t see the need to sell equity at discount to achieve goals of liquidity and diversification. Alternatives provide benefits without many of the disadvantages.


I agree if the justification and need for this proposal is liquidity and diversification then this proposal is not the best solution. If justification is to bring in vc/funds because of the strategic benefits they can bring (which can be worth just as much as money), then what are the strategic benefits so we are able to somewhat determine their worth?

Side note: One way to diversify treasury funds if that is the need for this proposal, Sushi keeps the sushi bar fees (that is collected in other crypto) and distributes equal amount in sushi from treasury. This can be done piece meal or on select pairs as not to cut off open market buy orders completely.


Love to see everyone input and stirring discussion here just a small summary and precision to orient the discussion further and will add some polling options in 24h depending where this is going.

  • Lower the max cap of 60m transparently based on a 30% discount we have 50m confirmed by all the funds listed up there.

  • Discount being too steep if we lower the discount they will most likely lower their allocation which would hit 2 birds with 1 rock.

  • The value is mainly in onboarding strategic partners that will contribute positively to the Sushi ecosystem we are already seeing some of these interaction with the recent Kampai proposal and gather even more support in the future.

  • Some of the firms actually inquired about a longer vesting schedule 4 years 40% discount, all the terms are flexible and up for discussions, I gathered interest fairly quickly and they are all aware of how the community works at Sushi.

  • These funds already have a stake in Sushi but aren’t displaying it publicly this is just how we are perceived at the moment part of the “liquid” allocation instead of a portfolio company. This is one way to scale and participate.

  • Very keen to have some talks revolving around the UMA range tokens instead of just taking whatever is written directly this is meant to be improved and fine tuned : Treasury Diversification With Range Tokens | by Kevin Chan | UMA Project | Jun, 2021 | Medium

  • Sushi team isn’t hurting for funds but we can have a bigger ROI by adding long term partners that will bolster our ecosystem with their other projects involvement.

  • if xSushi yield is a blocker we could have the vested Sushi stay vanilla.

  • Voting power this would diversify the current landscape which isn’t bad per se.

  • It would be very interesting to see funds come publicly with what they wish to add so everyone can realize the plus value.

  • The whitelisted addresses for LP is a very interesting point by @Bento

  • DeFi_Ted did a small intervention in the Sushi Forum call on Discord to potentially have Ruler Protocol help structure a Bond potentially too.


Thank you @0xMaki for clarifying.

As originally posted, the proposal was part of the diversification plan. The clarification says the “value is mainly in onboarding strategic partners”.

@Bento, Kampai proposal, and my reply above are all, IMO, better ways to achieve treasury diversity.

Re: Strategic partners

  1. “These funds already have a stake in Sushi but aren’t displaying it publicly…”

1.a If capital funds have already invested stakeholder $, our incentives are already aligned. Not only ethically (for sake of stakeholders), but also financially, they would want to engage in partnerships that help Sushi, let alone ones that are mutually beneficial with other portfolio companies.

1.b “…Instead of a portfolio company” How does this benefit Sushi?

As you say, Sushi is already a “blue chip” protocol, widely recognized as successful, innovative, etc. We should (and do) work to make Sushi an obvious choice in partnerships, not because we are a “portfolio company of x” but because of the value we contribute (see recent partnerships with Harmony, Polygon, etc.).

  1. “It would be very interesting to see funds come publicly with what they wish to add so everyone can realize the plus value” - I don’t understand - It seems there is a soft promise to do x to benefit Sushi.

2.a Does this mean they are unwilling to partner with us without the preference (30% discount) outlined in the proposal (despite already owning a stake?)

2.b More directly, why should we not expect explicit commitments on how these “strategic partners” benefit protocol? Would these benefits be exclusive to Sushi? For how long? (echo others above)

2.c The cited example of Kampai proposal as a benefit of “strategic partner” is, IMO, a poor one.

Understanding of finance none withstanding, there is nothing in Kampai proposal I see that is dependent/unique to capital funds. It is a very well outlined idea, crouched in a broader and ongoing interest in better stewarding treasury funds across protocols.

Better examples would be exclusive partnership, certain technology or capability we don’t possess, or access to markets we are unable to obtain without partnership.

  1. “adding long term partners that will bolster our ecosystem” - Like diversification of funds, there are other ways of accomplishing this than selling treasury funds at a discount. To underline, the sheer nominal amount of discount is 25.7mm (based on 30% discount of 60mm deal size).


To me, the proposal suggests we must bribe our way into these partnerships - that without a discount the “strategic investor list” would be unwilling to form long standing partnerships.

If asked, I’m sure this isn’t the case. a) Many are already invested in Sushi, b) as a consequence, they are already aligned, and most importantly c) Sushi continues to innovate ways to provide value for potential partners - including other protocols these firms have interests in.

We can and should pursue relationships with capital firms + other protocols. We don’t need to do so on these terms nor structure - especially given the total lack of commitment and explanation of what the benefit is, and how/why these benefits are foregone if we don’t pass the proposal.

Additionally, it would be nice to see how the discount was derived, and why we are choosing a timeframe where token price has retraced to January levels. Given our maturity, I would rather us be valued on the merits of cash flow, market position and speed of growth -not whims of crypto market for equity sale.

In short: There are better ways of diversifying funds. There are better ways of establishing long term partnerships.


As @OmakaseBar mentioned, a $60mm hard cap is a ridiculous number, as is 45% of the dev treasury. I agree that the size of this round should at max be in the mid-20 millions. The Sushi Treasury needs to be overweight SUSHI, not overweight stablecoin. Even $25mm is arguably a very large number—if we assume operational expenses top out at $1mm a year (which seems like an overly aggressive assumption), that gives 25 years of runway (excluding the yield that can be generated).

The list of institutions also includes 21 names. To me it seems a bit ridiculous we need 21 different funds to participate. If the point of the sale is to on-board strategic partners rather than to raise money, it is ridiculous to me that adding 21 funds will result in 21 strategic partners that contribute unique value that none of the other funds can contribute. Many of these funds also all know each other and are all big name Crypto focused funds, is the value add they each bring really that different from one another? For instance, just picking two random names, what value can Coinfund bring that Multicoin Capital cannot bring? What about the difference between Pantera and Polychain, they are both crypto hedge funds after all. What about Lightspeed—they don’t even invest in crypto historically, how do we know they won’t just sour on crypto if we get another big bear market?

What kind of help does Sushi actually need from these funds, it’s not like any of them can magically help on-board a ton of users into DeFi. If the core team wants intros, these funds all know the same people, bringing on one or two would be the same as bringing on more of them. Also, how do we know they are not lying when they say they already have Sushi positions? I think the idea of asking these funds to talk about how they can add value will be a great idea and we should totally do that before we give any of these funds any allocation.

We should significantly pare down this list to e.g. 5-7 funds max that we actually believe can bring significant value to Sushi’s ecosystem and who are good partners. The notion that each of these 21 funds will each bring their own value add that none of the other funds can bring is completely ridiculous to me. If we significantly cut down on the number of funds we give allocation to, we can also bring the round size down significantly and this deal would then make much more sense. That is just my 2 satoshis.

Sushi’s greatest strength so far, unlike many of the VC funded projects, has been our strong community who have contributed great ideas like Shoyu and Kashi. We have one of the most active governance forums of any blue chip DeFi project and have the most voter participation. It would be a terrible mistake to push this proposal through as is and alienate the community/small holders of SUSHI.


the treasury address is: 0xe94b5eec1fa96ceecbd33ef5baa8d00e4493f4f3
ops multisig is: 0x19b3eb3af5d93b77a5619b047de0eed7115a19e7

the two addresses have a combined total of 34.3m sushi, not sure where the 51m number comes from. see etherscan:

this shows that the treasury+multisig has a maximum of 21m sushi after accounting for vesting. that big jump on april 5 was simp #3. not sure what happened around june 14 and why the balance dropped from ~49m to ~33m sushi.

with a hard cap of $60m of sushi sold at $6.05, this = selling 9.92m units of sushi. if the treasury has roughly 21m sushi, 9.92m is 47.2% of its total sushi holdings, which is a retardedly high number.


Thanks for highlighting the range token @0xMaki. I’m part of the UMA team, but also a personal SUSHI token holder since day one so this topic is particularly important to me. Our team put together a proposal for SushiSwap to use a range token to diversify the treasury. UMA has just raised $2.6MM with a group of well known investors and announced it today. It was just meant to be a small experiment to show how this is done, but the demand and interest was extremely high.

Range tokens can help SushiSwap do the following:

  • Access funds and diversify its treasury without directly selling its native tokens
  • Borrow funds without liquidation risk using the project token as collateral
  • Define lock up terms for the investor in a smart contract
  • Leverage the growth of their protocol to sell tokens at a higher valuation
  • Customize payouts and easily deploy with UMA financial contract templates

If we as a community believe that $SUSHI is undervalued and can rally over the next 6 months, the range token is the ideal solution for raising funds. A range token acts like convertible debt. It will allow the SushiSwap treasury to effectively borrow funds now and determine a price to sell its tokens at expiry (6 months from now). As with many here, I do not like the idea of selling at steep discount. If we are bullish $SUSHI the range token will enable us to bet on the protocol’s success and allow it to raise funds at a favourable valuation.

I put together a 1 page proposal to show what this range token looks like if SushiSwap raised just over $40mm in this way and what the effective prices it would sell $SUSHI to investors given where settlement is.

I am also sharing a spreadsheet that will allow everybody in this forum to play with the parameters of the range token and experiment with its pricing.

The UMA team will launch a live version of this on Monday so that you can see exactly how this works and also show how easy it can be done.

Please let me and the team know your thoughts on this and we are happy to answer any questions.

SushiSwap Range Token Proposal

SushiSwap Range Token Pricing Spreadsheet


Diversifying the treasury portfolio is a good idea I think. Taking 25% and turning it into a mix of stables/ETH/BTC. Not a bad idea.

FYI: Institutions aren’t really taking on much risk if they don’t want to… they can simply borrow corresponding xSUSHI on Aave to lock in the proceeds of the discount regardless of future Sushi price.

Offering to sell OTC at or very close to market price aligns incentives much better. Allows investors to get a large position without moving the price. This also removes the need for complex vesting systems. Allows Sushi to diversify the treasury. Win-win.

If they are sure the price of Sushi will go up, they should be willing to buy at market without slippage. If they aren’t, they will hedge and it’s of no use to Sushi.


But we already voted on the proposal that should cover this (the one with the guy who actively rebalances the funds for 1%/year fee). And it should’ve been processed back when sushi was at $20 and not what may be a bottom for the year.

I can’t help thinking that someone here might have a vested interest to liquidate the treasury to the vulture capital. Wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a finders fee involved.

Are we really at the stage of the IPO, where insiders get to encash their shares and bid the rest of the bagholders a fairwell?


I just liked the idea of using OTC to diversify the treasury vs. market selling, as it keeps the price more stable. There could also be real benefits in getting strategic hodlers. Future Fund as a large holder I think and they have helped Sushi by purchasing and gifting sushi.com. Which I think was a great move that the community couldn’t get done because it seemed expensive.

But if most of the funds in this round are already holders, I don’t see that much benefit. But obviously, if this comes to a vote… since most of the whales are the funds involved, I’m sure it will pass. It would be nice to get some info on each fund suggested and why they are a strategic investor and not just money.

Disclaimer: I’m not involved with Sushi (except socially with some of the team) and I don’t hold SUSHI (except about 2000 SUSHI farming rewards I haven’t harvested and sold yet).


I’m gonna be the devil’s advocate here but maybe some big funds who already hold SUSHI are not extremely exposed right now so they can’t commit seriously.
Maybe if their holdings grew, they could become more involved in governance/development etc.
I repeat I don’t know if that’s the case because I didn’t “study” this proposal enough to form an opinion.

1 Like

Hey SushiSquad, and thanks 0xMaki for the proposal, but I have to take the side of most of the replies on here. I believe they are some very balanced and valid responses from the community, which are worth listening to.

Many have already been clear and explicit on the critiques, @RaphaelSignal & @klemperer-the-goat , so I won’t drag them on but rather add on and summarize.

  1. Deal size too big- I’m not sure if this proposal is to keep the vulture capital funds happy or to diversify the treasury, but anything from 25%-50% of the treasury to be given out on 1 raise is really overdoing it. Diversifying the treasury can be done internally by the team (maybe even a new sushi branch) using derivatives, lending, options, etc.

  2. Too many “strategic” investors- over 20 funds getting in on the deal sounds exciting, and makes sushi the new kid on the block (or should I say books) But many of these funds 1.) already have SOME exposure 2.) have the same portfolio companies as each other 3.) won’t add much unique differentiated value, unless they have a plan that they are willing to share. If we want to onboard strategic investors, we have to be strategic on who they are and how they are onboarded.

  3. Discount too steep- If we were in an uptrend, the discount makes a ton of sense. But considering the coordinated attacks, whale dumping, and macro rotations that have happened in the last months, selling at a 25% discount when the price is already 50% below the highs does not seem like a wise decision for Sushi, but a rather a dreamy opportunity for investors.

Overall, I like the idea… but with sushi being the unique bluechip that it is (yes it already is a bluechip and no one can deny it) I think we should take a different approach.

  • The internal Sushi team should choose 4 institutional investors that they KNOW they want to have onboard, because of past contributions (e.g. Future Fund) or current involvement.

  • Allow the other 16 investors on the list to compete for a spot on the round. Sushi Team moves fast… Let’s see how fast these funds can move if we give them all 1 week to send a proposal to the Sushi community on their strategy to grow and improve Sushi. This way they are forced to compete for the biggest value-add, leveraging VC level innovation in the process through natural selection. Keep it open source for the community to engage in, but ultimately allow the internal Sushi team to choose. Allowing only 4 fund to participate. this way we keep the participants that have big plans for sushi and will be diamond hands.

  • This would onboard 8 HIGHLY ENGAGED institutional investors, and bring down the raise to roughly 20M USD, which makes more sense considering the treasury size.

  • In the spirit of sushi, we should include another 5M USD for a community raise, have the caps at 50,000 to allow for a minimum of 100 individuals to participate. There should also be an application/competition selection process to make sure that each participant is highly engaged and motivated to stick around and help.

  • The market is already on a fire sale. Its quite convenient that every fund wants a sushi position now that the price is depressed but fundamentals are booming. Therefore only a 10% discount makes sense for Sushi.

IF a raise is to be done, these terms seem in the best interest of Sushi

But, I don’t think Sushi should raise capital right now. It doesn’t seem like we are in grave need of a treasury diversification plan right now, Its revenue should suffice for all operational expenses for the time being.
As Defi regains strong traction in public market valuations, sushi fundamentals continue to increase, and the new protocol upgrade is running smoothly, We can make multiple small raises on the way up, or even just begin to diversify and leverage the treasury internally.

Either raise mindfully, or be patient. Good things are coming.


as for the range tokens, I believe its a brilliant idea and in Sushi’s best interest… (if theres is going to be a raise no matter what)

It would just be a finding out if they would still be interested in doing a raise of that kind.


If we as a community believe that $SUSHI is undervalued and can rally over the next 6 months, the range token is the ideal solution for raising funds.

Hey everyone just wanted to emphasize this. I am also a day one sushi investor and farmer and i’m also involved with the community at UMA. Sushi continues to build at a breakneck pace while other DEXs seem to get all the attention. I personally believe sushi is severely undervalued which is ofc not investment advice (obligatory)
I think that how we implement our treasury is going to have a lot to do with our success here. This is a true community project unlike some others and as a community we are going to have to come together and decide how to best use our treasury. I’d implore anyone who has not checked out Kev’s proposal to have a look,


I like this idea. It makes sense. I can’t see any benefit selling at such a low price. Very nicely put together. I can definitely see this as an upside to really get where we need to be. Can’t wait to hear what others think. Seems like the best viable option. Would really like to check this out Monday as well.


Thanks for sharing Kevin. The Range Token spreadsheet is a great way to see the true impact of how they work and the benefits that they can provide. Does the Sushi team have any questions that we can help to answer?


I believe this way of handling a sale would be more in tune with the general purpose of a strategic round. If the VCs believe they can add value rather than reap the discount they could adjust their positions in a way that makes sense to them and the ranges could be customized to their liking pending DAO approval. It’s also not too far fetched that they would already be equipped to work out a deal in this manner since convertible bonds are common practice in regular finance.

The Range Token is essentially protecting the treasury from a crash below the range low where most investors would dump and take the loss and at the same time rewarding the investors for taking on higher downside risk should price increase. If the Funds, of who I also think 21 is too many, want to add value to the protocol this is a way to incentivize it further and insure sushi’s price from cascading down at the same time. At the end of the day they believe the token is worth more with them being involved so they should be able to take some sort of extra risk if they wish to get a discount, especially one as massive as 25%~.

Sidenote : I would also strongly caution to giving up such a large portion of the protocols token reserves, You are handing a huge chunk of all governance decisions to a very small select group of people, all of whom are probably in touch with one another. What we are doing here is selling around 5-8%~ of the company (off the top of my head).


@0xMaki gave us a really good brief on the forum call. I agree about having more decentralization for the governance by including some experienced and unbiased institutional investors. I also feel this could set a price floor for Sushi in general. Lowkey agree with @GreenEyes about the # of investors. If we are aligning towards the “strategic” part maybe it’s good to vet funds based on what they can offer us on our long-term partnership. I also feel like we should explore the range tokens, it seems to fit perfectly to our use case in this situation, but can understand the pain of dealing with funds in general because of all the workload included.


The Range token proposal looks like an awesome idea to onboard institutional investors.