Happy to chat 1:1 JTT and listen further.
thought the call was great and you did a great job explaining how you will add value
I think the why is pretty clear and has been outlined many times. We should diversify the treasury - this discussion has been ongoing for months (through various proposals) and at the same time acquire strategic partners necessary for our next growth phase. You can find what we define as strategic here and why specifically now after developing all the necessary foundations for the ecosystem (Sushi Phantom Troupe - Strategic Raise - #284 by OmakaseBar). If you are active in the community you’ll also know why we’re at a key inflection point given our recent product and protocol level enhancements. There also is no rush, we’re committed to visibility and accessibility throughout this process and according to the proposed schedule for this week (Sushi Phantom Troupe - Strategic Raise - #283 by OmakaseBar). In terms of transparency we have AMAs and discussions regarding each revision and proposal every single day this week and all are recorded here (Sushi Phantom Troupe Episode 1 - YouTube)
Again if you feel this process is inaccessible at any point you can schedule a 1:1 with me here: Calendly - Omakase
Not sure I understand your statement “the price wont run from TWAP for the past 30days”. If you meant spot, then yes, spot is currently more competitive than 30d TWAP.
To provide some clarification (as of time of posting)
30d TWAP: $7.72
Additionally we do not approach timing this discussion from a price perspective. Of course prices are depressed, but whether they rally or continue to depress further is not our call to make - we’ve laid out two key objectives: treasury diversification and onboarding strategic partners. The rationale for both have been presented clearly. Additionally the warrant structure proposed continues to emphasize that timing price is irrelevant as we have set a forward sales price on Sushi for when we feel an additional sale is appropriate.
Maybe I should have fraze it differently, but the gist is that the timing of this proposal and the 30 days TWAP leaves no doubt that it was coordinated to capture the lowest price possible in spite of you guys saying “strategic partners necessary for our next growth phase” as cover for timing. Im not saying its not needed but it seems that there is no consideration and/or regard for value for your present stakeholders in Sushi since it didn’t even cross your minds or care of the sensibility of all your sushi stakeholders that put their hard earn money on the line and their faith in the sushi team. In other Words the timing of this discussion would have been different if care and sensibility was a major concern and appreciative of all stakeholders and not just a few ones that can be counted on one hand. It is very bad optics for you guys, which leads to speculation which could be unfounded about the Sushi Team which you should have learn and avoided at all cost from previous optics disaster that almost kill the project because of bad optics from Chef Nomi. Any responsible team would have learned from that and would have made sure that the optics would be great from all angles and not repeated again, especially from the new saved Sushi Team. Just because I have to spell this out, there is a problem in my Opinion, That is why I propose a longer TWAP of 90 to 120 days so it will not just capture the lowest low but an average of highs and lows and it would put you guys in a better light where the optics shows you didn’t just favor a small slice of time that’s only favorable to a handful of VCs at the lowest low coinciding with Treasury proposal. I’m just presenting an idea that I think could diffused some of the community concern (Twitter and Web) that the team are sharing the bed with the VCs, no disrespect intended, but had to spell it out, Because at the end of the day the most precious thing Sushi have is Trust in the project, and at the present The VCs seems that they dont care and do whatever it takes at whatever cost for a now benefit 'till they jump to the next one and definitely wont care if Sushi sinks or floats after they got what they wanted Also I’m sure lots of investors are watching this whole process how it will play-out and perhaps some of them undecided to hodl or not. Always hoping for the best. That’s all. There is a saying that Perception can become reality. Hope I helped clarifying my previous message. Thank You!
P.S. ‘Additionally we do not approach timing this discussion from a price perspective’ Just to let you in, Price is everything and your team show how disconnected it is from your Community/Stakeholders and How connected is to the VC needs…Sushi doesn’t run on empty air…We all should be at least honest who is going to benefit most from this and stop with all this deflective smoke and mirrors.
Long time lurker here but decided to contribute this time. Background: I have been on both sides of the table (as a previous investor & recently a startup founder) and wanted to throw in my 2 cents.
I agree with JTT that some traditional investment deals can be shady, and we should be vigilant.
I also think a lot of anxiety can come from not knowing how a typical VC raise works (at least that’s what happened with me).
Here is my take of a typical VC investment process (for a hot company):
- Let’s get to know each other stage, where all the interested VCs pitch to us about how they can help (WE’RE HERE).
- We think through + vote on which teams we like and trim down the list of investors to engage.
- The selected VCs then deliver term sheets to us.
- Back and forth negotiations of the term sheets (JTT you can probably propose a longer TWAP of 90 to 120 days here) until an agreement is reached.
- Sign the docs + transaction execution!
Please note that before the docs are signed, either side can step away at any stage of the process. No harm, no foul.
The mgnr thread suggests that the option as proposed is underpriced, in which case the community allocation will be oversubscribed (especially if there are no safeguards to prevent funds from eating the entire thing). «
but don’t worry best deal will be for VCs
the community say no for this proposal Oxmaki when your survey. i don’t think we want any kind of offer
I think it is important to not lose sight of the objectives here. Sushi wants to diversify their treasury (that is good) and add a strategic partner to help them grow the protocol (that is also good). Given Sushi’s track record so far, I trust the Sushi team and I value their input. They know more about this protocol than any of us do, and their leadership has a better sense for how to grow this company and which VCs can help them do that.
I’m not saying that Sushi leadership should make the final decision without our thoughts, but we should definitely consider their opinion because ultimately Sushi leadership will be working one-on-one with the VCs, not us. I would hate for the community to disincentivize VCs that Sushi prefers from participating because we agreed to a limiting proposal. Then, Sushi diversifies their treasury, but is forced to work with VCs they do not value as highly. What is the point of that? We would only be meeting one objective.
So, my question is to the Sushi team @OmakaseBar @0xMaki :
Is there a way to identify the VCs that the Sushi developers and leaders want to work with most? I think this is an important piece for us to consider.
And, can you provide an updated list of the VCs “still in the running” with their current Sushi holding percentage? I would also be super curious to see which VCs would support Arca’s proposal and which would otherwise back out.
My understanding of VC investing is that they would like to receive sufficient upside in their investment. Given Sushi’s price today, an argument could be made that there is already sufficient upside without leverage (which I believe is Arca’s mind-set), but I would love to see which VCs think differently and would like some leverage.
Arca’s proposal seemed straight-forward, although I question whether the objectives will be met. Meaning, will Sushi attract the VCs they want to attract? Is Arca simply trying to protect its current meaningful ownership by proposing a solution that disincentives other major VCs with no ownership from entering?
I’m going to second this one. Good deals are about what you get beyond the money - the human value add. You will only get this when the team and VCs respect each other and get alone.
To make this more colorful, imagine your boss asked you to hire his lazy nephew as your new backend engineer. How would you feel? How would he feel? And what would happen to the team’s morale and output?
At a very deep level, you have to let the leaders of the team … lead the team.
Can we go away from determining a TWAP (and the volatility/uncertainty this has caused)
Dutch auction on MISO, Start 2x the current price, set over 7 days.
Let an open market decide the price.
on this page Sushi Phantom Troupe | Detailed Proposal
I click on each proposal and whenever I try to click “read more” nothing happens. (ex. the UMA proposal)
Hey everyone! After discussing on the community call We at Arca released a Twitter thread on our thoughts on the new deal, and how it is priced at +114.29% above the original deal proposed, and sells -53.33% less Sushi than the original proposal. We also wanted to lay out where we think we can be a value add for both the Sushi team and the community. We hope all the strategic investors do the same. If you have any questions or pushbacks on the deal structure or where we think we can be a value add, ask them here and I will do my best to answer them!
I think Jeff has a done lot by stepping in and stopping a disastrous deal from happening. I know John is a big fan of Sushi, not because what he said yesterday, but because he has been a big advocate prior to this proposal. I believe that he was blindsided by this proposal like the rest of us and he stepped in and stopped it.
In regard to Amy, I didn’t think Amy had a chance, especially in my eyes because she was linked to that initial proposal and IMO just provided typical VC vague talk on how value will be added. Not much substance. But, instead of doing a $60M raise only for the VCs, it has been reduced to only $10M for VCs and major investors. So, we can test to see if what Amy is saying is true. If she does help Sushi great, but if not, it won’t have as disastrous consequences as the first proposal. My criticisms of Lightspeed/Amy mainly stem from the first proposal and their connection with it. If she becomes a part of the Sushi team through a fair proposal, which looks like is starting to come to fruition, I will definitely be rooting for her to bring value to Sushi. I don’t have anything personal against her. And if the deal becomes a complete failure, the consequence is only $10M, instead of $60M, which is something that can be stomached.
I think Jeff said something really important yesterday. We got to keep things simple. I agree 100%. The whole talk of options and warranties I think is causing great confusion and fear. I think its best if we just drop the warranty from the proposal. Also, the talk of this proposal has caused too much speculation regarding the current price of the Sushi token and we have witnessed big players dumping Sushi. This has caused some fear in the community and the belief that market manipulation is at play. I think we need to set this OTC price as soon as possible to end the speculation. I do not think a 30-day TWAP would be a good price to set it for, due to all the speculation and manipulation of the price due to this proposal.
Just scroll down, you should be able to see
The main problem for the push of Warrants it creates a lower price floor for dilution in the future for Sushi holders.
They should increase the price of Warrants to, say at $40 that way most present holders wont have a problem with a higher dilution price. If they believe in Sushi the VCs knows even at higher price they get many time over their initial investment after 2 years… with no risk in the mean time and it shows they have in consideration all present stakeholders. If not make your own opinion.
Sushi goal is to be as huge as CoinBase if not better, so in this case the Warrant valuation @ $40 will look as a steal 2years from now. But I doubt Jeff Dorman @jdorman81 will go for that, since hes playing both sides as being the one to help but in the mean time he Orchestrates the whole process timetables, terms and Warrants and strive to win this contest for Sushi Phantom Troupe - Strategic Raise.
Maybe that was the plan all along, I’ll never know for sure but hes the one That I would keep my Eyes on!
Its all about the money dont let them fool you with all their words full of fanciness and misdirecting energy.
Wonder what @jdorman81 Opinion is on a 90days to 120days TWAP for price anchor on this offering. But I doubt he would even entertain this ideas since it would not be in his interest… But we shall see what comes out of this process soon enough and see all involved for what they are.
Agreed. Set an amount, say 1 million SUSHI, fair price determined at auction.
VCs with stronger conviction (priced higher) will end up with more tokens pro-rata.
No warrants, just have another auction in 3-6 months, the incentive is to do well by the community and remain eligible for the subsequent auctions.
Hi @JTT … to be fair, we stopped a terrible deal from happening, and proposed our own new deal, but we didn’t really have anything to do with the current terms. We like them, and support them, but will always defer to the community on what makes most sense.
Unfortunately, there are infinite permutations available when dealing with derivatives (maturities, strikes, tenors, etc). There is never going to be consensus, and inevitably some people will disagree.
We support the basis structure of this deal… but little tweaks here and there are irrelevant to us. We are going to vote yes as soon as this comes to a vote.
I understand your intentions but I also don’t think its fair to mischaracterize @jdorman81 in that way. He’s been one of the only important funds to release good research and analysis on $SUSHI without asking for discounts and is constantly participating. Also, I agree that it shouldn’t be all about the money… but then again if there was no money involved neither you nor I would be on this forum talking right now.
I understand what you are saying, but at same time I’m being cautious of “Jesus walking across the Atlantic Ocean” to come to be our Savior. I did not ‘mischaracterize @jdorman81’, I was just inferring to a possibility… Like I said " I’ll never know for sure" but I know one thing for sure… He is no Angel and he didn’t run a popularity contest to get where hes at ARCA as CFA… All I’m hopping for is a fair, uplifting and beneficial process for all Sushi stakeholders and not for just a handful robing the majority of Sushi stakeholders. That is all and I dont think that’s being unreasonable and all Sushi stakeholders should strive for same, including @jdorman81. Action, intention shows end outcomes. All the best.
I agree with your 1st sentence for the time being, but I still have my reservations 'till we know what the final terms are, which it seems are still cooking. Also I do agree the more simple the better… But still can get over that fact that Arca which you represent is #2 on proposals even though you claim that was not your intention to begin with. If it is just used as a place holder for a better deal, I would commend and respect you for that, but if you dont withdraw ARCA before the end of this ‘Strategic Raise’ then your intentions can be construed as Opportunistic the least and I would easily make the next connection and say the whole thing was a trap and setup by The VC and to Quote you [ “we stopped a terrible deal from happening and proposed our own new deals”] I would change that to “we stopped a terrible deal from happening and proposed your (ARCA) own new deal”]… But I’ll withhold final judgement for when the final terms are in and who is part of it. In the mean time I’ll stay cautiously optimistic and let the facts on the ground speak for themself.
P.S. You haven’t gave a direct response of what you Think about a " 90days to 120days TWAP"