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
- “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.).
- “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.
- “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.