[Withdrawn] Sushi Phantom Troupe - Strategic Raise

Yeah, its the range token thing is more of a long term play.

The market is a bit depressed right now, this isnt a great time to be looking to sell off large amounts, a range token allows cash to be raised, but without the risks that there could be a strong rally that would make the sale look v, cheap in hindsight


The fact that Sushi can access their borrowed funds without risk of liquidation is incredible. UMA really makes it simple to get started and offers a lot of support all the way through. $SUSHI is 100% undervalued atm and I’m really excited for later today to be able to see the live version in action. $SUSHI x $UMA


Experienced - yes. Unbiased? Quite the opposite. They already know each other, and once this atrocity goes into core vote, they will make it pass with w/e discount they think they’ll get away with.

Don’t see how. The purchase is of the funds that are not market liquidity. And it will be a net sell pressure, whenever they choose to dump. And there’s no such thing as a ‘floor’, when btc can crash any moment and topple everyone else with it.

Because nothing spells ‘decentralization’ like a bunch of tight-knit vultures obtaining controlling shares of your enterprise.

1 Like

This is interesting because while I see your point, the flip side is that if we continue to see depressed market conditions for a while it seems like the range bonds also would protect the Sushi treasury from continued decreasing price of the token and the diversification could be a somewhat mitigating/balancing factor.

Given what others have said, my personal opinion is that we should be thoughtful with the amount of the raise (something more in the range of $20-30 million) and make sure the investors have some strategic value to provide that can further overall goals for the protocol, but that this could be beneficial for mitigating potential risks with treasury diversification as well as have strategic benefits if the right investors are chosen.

Based on those two factors, I am in favor of this and can see it as a positive move overall.


To make @kevin’s Range Token proposal more “real” and to illustrate the range token functionality, we created a Sushi Range Token that follows the specs that @kevin proposed. This token is intended to be used as an educational tool, but, if the Sushiswap community is satisfied with the specs, it could theoretically be used as is today to create and issue SUSHI Range Tokens.

Basic specs from Kevin’s post that are present here:

  • A SUSHI range token pair can be minted with 0.25 SUSHI. This creates 1 long range token (rtSUSHI-0122) and 1 short token (rtSUSHI-0122s).
  • Under Kevin’s example proposal, each rtSUSHI-0122 would be sold for ~$0.875. The Sushiswap treasury would hold the short range tokens, as these are just tokenized overcollateralization.
  • In 6 months, on January 31st, the Range Token contract would settle. In the example contract, the settlement value would be based on a 1 hour TWAP of SUSHI/USD before the expiry time. If SUSHI/USD settles within the range of $4-$16, each rtSUSHI-0122 will be worth $1 in SUSHI.
    • 1 HR SUSHI/USD twap settles at $4 → 1 rtSUSHI-0122 is worth 0.25 SUSHI.
    • Settles at $16 → 1 rtSUSHI-0122 is worth 0.0625 SUSHI.
  • Outside of the range, rtSUSHI-0122 holders would be exposed to the SUSHI price since the redemption value in SUSHI has a floor and a cap.
    • SUSHIUSD settlement above the range, at say $18, would mean that each RT would still be worth the floor of 0.0625 SUSHI, or $1.125.
    • SUSHIUSD settlement below the range, at say $2, would mean that each RT is worth the cap of of 0.25 SUSHI, or $0.5.

This is just an example contract and the design could be adjusted to meet whatever specs are decided on. We could make a new RT backed by xSUSHI, adjust the range, change the unlock date etc.


Seconding this point, the first step to revision, if not providing precision to the proposal, would involve the community and core team defining “strategic” and how this relates to Sushi. This term seems to be used often, but still remains somewhat vague. Would like to see more discussion to provide precision to this term.

Some preliminary thoughts. Personally, strategic partners can be defined in the follow dimensions:

  • can our partner provide additional resources to supplement technical and legal advisory/execution
  • can our partner expose us to and has significant reach to new audiences (we should keep in mind DeFi is still very niche)
  • can our partner integrate our offerings to new partners or portfolio companies
  • can our partner share long term strategic vision and advisory (strong research focus and departments)
  • will our partner actively participate in governance and help drive discussions such as these to diversify the voting power effectively

Welcome more discussion to hone in on further details.


Re: the point of “will our partner actively participate in governance and help drive discussions…”

I encourage funds that are selected in and outside of the list posted above to participate in the discussion alongside our community members. Ultimately, being a part of Sushi also means being a part of the Sushi community. Only through engagement will you gain the exposure/visibility to win support from the community.

To add on to the points of what “strategic” means, here are some of my personal thoughts:

  1. Strategic partners need to possess resources both in and outside of the realm of DeFi. To move from 0 to 1 is to capture the niche market (DeFi). However, to progress from 1 to 100 is to capture the bigger market-- those who still hold cash and are in the traditional space.

Further comments/ideas/suggestions are welcomed.


Ever since I learned about UMA’s range tokens, I was immediately intrigued since it’s probably the safest way to invest in something you truly believe in long term. The world of crypto is volatile AF, but this could mitigate your investment to be a more sensible and less scary than any other way to invest.

I really like UMA for their creative solutions in the DeFi world. Their LSP tokens are just so versatile yet easy to understand (a lot easier than doing complicated options trading IMO). So, because of their unbelievable potential and growth, I invested a big percentage of my portfolio in UMA tokens and decided to support their team and learn from them as much as I can. And I’ve found them to be a really competent and fun team to be around with. If you guys are interested, feel free to join too. They’re an extremely welcoming and helpful bunch.

I truly believe Sushi is in good hands by partnering with UMA for these range tokens.


Exactly, the emphasis of the keyword “strategic” sounds a bit hazy! If they can even checklist a few points here, that’d be great! Especially legal parts and offerings to portfolio companies.

I don’t know if I totally agree with this. If our goal is to have a wide network to pull from and a group of advisors with diverse operating expertise, then we have to go larger. Having strong funds with a lot of experience doesn’t directly equate to them being supervillains either. This is why we have to “vet”.

This is why we set a proper vesting schedule. Normally when major funds are invested they would never set let the price go beyond a particular floor. If it does, I think they buy more and try to keep a lower avg. entry price. If we can create a proper vesting schedule, I don’t think we have to worry about this generally imo. This also creates a strong case of validation in the general public. The investors in this list are pretty alpha with good track records. If they are willing to invest at this rate, it creates a lot of validation for the project. Of course, every other altcoin is dependent on BTC price, but that doesn’t make any strong argument on why it shouldn’t set a price floor.


If this is even close to being a consideration than the strategic benefits need to be explicitly defined and detailed with measurable metrics to define whether they have been successful after the fact.

Strategic benefits so far seems to be used as a buzz word aimed at justifying following a system that carries over from TradFi.

How specifically would these strategic benefits play out?

What exactly ( we need a defined list) these benefits are (if they exist)?

How do we define measurables to verify if these benefits have been provided and to what extent?

What mechanisms are put in place to ensure the VC’s follow up regarding their responsibility to add strategic benefits to Sushi?

Are there any courses of recall if (and most likely when) the VC’s are shown to not be providing these benefits?

If the Sushi team does not need money and we are already positioned as a top protocol with increasingly growing metrics in all regards, why would we sell anything at a discount, especially to a demographic that is historically predatory?

I could keep going, but if none of this is laid out and defined, this is little more than a donation to VC’s @0xMaki @0x_chu .


Range tokens would be available to buy on exchanges, yeah?

So small holders who were bullish on Sushi would be able to buy these range tokens. So you would be able to purchase a token that

  • had a fixed price if sushi stayed in a broad range
  • was the same price as the token if it went up a lot
  • was the same price as the token if it went down a lot.

So if you think it will go up a lot and are sure of the floor, buy the range token.

Is that right?

1 Like

This could’ve made sense back in the beginning. We’re perectly viable without.

It does, when the stake and discount they want will handle the control over the protocol to them. Unless they disclose how much sushi they already have, we must assume they have sufficient resources to outvote anyone.

Enforced by whom? The only way to hold FI responsible would be through legal. And Sushi does not have a corporation to stand part in trial. If the team establishes a corporation that will ‘own’ sushiswap, this will kiss our governance charade goodbye. Also, hi SEC.

Alternative would be to have a blockchain enforced escrow a-la Sablier, but something tells me the vultures won’t be so keen on it.

Again, this would’ve made sense back in september of last year. At this point, Sushi does not need any validation whatsoever.


0xMaki, I recall the days when I put my UMA tokens to good use to farm SUSHI. Through all the drama and despair, I held onto the firm belief that SUSHI was forked with the sole intention of surprising the crypto ecosystem. I can gladly say that, to date, I have not been disappointed! SUSHI team have a track record of continuously innovating and surprising the crypto ecosystem with novel products/ ideas.

So why not do the same when it comes to raising funds for treasury diversification plan?

Kevin makes a strong case for implementation of Range tokens to raise funds. As a fellow SUSHI and UMA holder, I am a strong advocate for it.


Hey guys–SBF here!

Disclaimers: (a) I’m not involved in this raise (though I’d be super happy to be); (b) obv I hodl a fuck ton of SUSHI; (c) these views are all my own and don’t represent the views of any companies; (d) not investment advice etc., (e) I’m currently doing a raise for FTX and so have lots of thoughts from that

Some brief thoughts here:

  1. I think this raise is a good idea. The basic reason is that, if you raise from the right VCs, they’ll fucking fight for you, and that’s worth a ton.
  2. If you raise from the wrong VCs, they’ll do fuck-all for you, be a pain in the ass, and then dump ASAP.
  3. Communication here is key, and making sure everyone is on the same page
  4. I think the lockup should be longer. If a VC wants to sell after 15 months then this raise didn’t really do what it was hoping to (make long-term partners), and if they don’t then they won’t mind ~2x-ing the lockup length.
  5. I think the discount is necessary to get good VCs in
  6. I think that, if you want to get VCs in, the size needs to be significant here – $60m doesn’t sound crazy
  7. looking at the list of investors:
    –21 total
    –11 I don’t know enough about to judge
    –0 are shit
    –2 are meh
    –5 are good
    –3 are great

overall those numbers are decent so I think this is a decent round, though with the big caveat that I don’t happen to have enough context to judge half of them.
8) if possible get https://twitter.com/cmsintern to participate personally as well so that you get some sick memes
9) also this will give a bunch of USD to the Treasury which isn’t the end of the world; it bought a bunch of SUSHI back at $2 or so a year ago in a somewhat contentious move at the time, so think of this as flipping those out for a 3x profit :stuck_out_tongue:


Another idea, building on the above:

  • Private Dutch auction on MISO
  • Around 40M in $SUSHI on sale (could be higher or lower depending on community/team preference)
  • Auction is for whitelisted buyers, which would be top ten or so most promising VCs who can really add value
  • Price starts at SUSHI TWAP and descends as low as 30% below TWAP, but auction ends if/as soon as it gets sold out at higher price
  • Max buy ceiling of ~7.5M USD per address
  • Two year lockup


  1. Favor/filter for VCs that are willing to pay higher price and thus probably have deeper commitment
  2. Drive higher sale price while still accommodating lower price if that’s what buyers demand
  3. Showcase MISO product in the process

Thank you everyone for giving us, Lightspeed Venture Partners, the opportunity to participate in this discussion and to potentially co-lead a strategic round for Sushi. We’ve read all of the comments in the thread and are grateful for everyone’s feedback.

First, a brief introduction of Lightspeed:

  • We’ve had the privilege of investing and supporting great teams in technology for over 20 years, across geo (US, China, India, SEA, Israel, Europe, LATAM) and across category (consumer - Snapchat, Epic Games, Affirm, PinDuoDuo; enterprise - Carta, TripActions, Nutanix, Zscaler; crypto; healthcare).
  • We’ve invested in 17 blockchain companies the last few years (Wintermute, Arbitrum, Zerion, DeversiFi, Blockchain.com, etc) and will continue to.
  • We’ve set up our fund to add value by supporting company building. This includes having dedicated teams to help with recruiting, PR, marketing, BD, and share best practices across 300+ portfolio companies.
  • We are long-term venture investors and we invest in team-first. Our typical time horizon investing is up to 10 years. We are not traders. We look for teams with similar long-term outlook and the vision to build an industry-defining company.

And, a bit more about me:

  • I’ve personally spent time with the Sushi team and others invested in Sushi. I’m a crypto, consumer, and gaming investor at Lightspeed and work closely with our companies like Arbitrum/Offchain Labs, Epic Games, Webull, and others. I was an executive at Discovery. I love to ski. You can learn more about me on twitter: @amytongwu
  • I will personally be one of the team members closely involved in supporting Sushi long-term if we invest. I’m putting myself out there on this post because I believe in decentralization and look forward to interacting with the community.

Why we are excited to partner with Sushi:

  • We believe this is one of the top teams in DeFi, from a product, vision, and execution-perspective
  • We believe in the decentralized governance model the community has established and believe the model and an engaged community is a long-term competitive advantage. We intend to participate in the governance alongside the community
  • We believe our areas of experience are complementary in supporting company value appreciation and therefore token value appreciation

What strategic value can we and other venture investors bring?

  • Relationships, especially outside of crypto. There is a long road ahead in expanding the current DeFi audience to the potential millions / billions of users in the future. This will take strong relationships outside of DeFi, which we have across geography and industry. For example, we would be excited to introduce a wide variety of fintech products, neobanks, and games to the Sushi team and community
  • Expand awareness of Sushi beyond DeFi. Sushi is indeed a blue chip project and the team excels at building great products that attract DeFi users. However, brand awareness remains low outside of core crypto (as it does for almost all DeFi projects–this isn’t specific to Sushi). We intend to amplify the message with our PR networks and introduce the product to new partners, beyond Defi
  • A history of company building. As mentioned above, we help our portfolio companies with recruiting, PR, marketing, BD, etc. Don’t take our word for it. If helpful, many from the Sushi community can share some stories, and/or we could bring a few of them here to write posts.
  • Global network. We have investors across the US, Europe, Israel, China, India, and Singapore and portfolio companies beyond. We will help Sushi continue to expand globally

What does it mean for us to act in good faith here?

  • Be aligned with helping build value in Sushi for the long-term
  • Work hard to actively help build out the Sushi ecosystem
  • Be a resource when needed

Why would we act in good faith?
Because capital is commoditized today, being a VC doesn’t make us special. The primary asset we have is our reputation, and we build that up with the companies we back.

A few responses to frequent questions we’ve seen in the comments:

Do we already hold Sushi?
No, our funds do not currently hold Sushi.

Should Sushi raise from VCs now?
Bottom line, Sushi doesn’t need capital. However, we think that raising from value-add funds could really help build out Sushi’s network, especially outside of the core crypto community. We think that Sushi should take investments from VCs who will fight for it to succeed, and not from those who will flip it for a profit and walk away. We encourage the community to do due diligence on any investor who wants to be in the round (us included), asking about the projects they’ve backed and how helpful the fund ended up being to the companies they have invested in.

Does the lockup justify the discount?
That’s up to the community. We’re really grateful for the discount, and think that is a key piece of making this round come together. But that only makes sense if, in return, the investors promise to be aligned with the long-term vision of Sushi. We’re glad that you guys brought up this objection.

We very much hope to take the first step of many in building a long relationship with the Sushi team and community.

Amy Wu
Partner, Lightspeed


Guys this plan is awful for one reason - It’s not fair.

Defi is all about giving the same opportunity to all regardless of their power or position.

Happy to have VCs involved and happy to pay for their services, but a 30% discount is a slap in the face to everyone who didn’t get a discount. Its just not fair, and this great project should absolutely not go down this route. An alternative must be found, please!

Please, please vote this down…

PS Nothing wrong with having the discussion, thanks to all


Why do the vc’s need a discount? If they believe in DeFi and vision why not buy in at market? It’s definitely a dip.

Second, in the way venture math works…proposed discount is negligible to them
if they believe this will 10x from here.

I can see the justification of a discount for guaranteed extended lock up or vesting but no way do the amounts proposed seem reasonable - they should be locked up to 4-7 years.


I’m excited about DeFi because it’s different. It’s values are different. I feel good about making money in this space. Sushi is one of my favourite project and a perfect example.

Giving away our Sushi tokens at a 30% discount to powerful VCs is sad, this takes away the good feeling in the project and makes it feel like TradFi, where the powerful get the best of everything.

It could be successful in increasing the value of my Sushi tokens, noone can know, but it wouldn’t feel the same.

Being sensible the 30% discount gives no contractual reason for VCs to help, some might some might not, but its a really bad deal for the Sushi token holders and community in my view.

I’m not against VCs or TradFi to be honest, but this is so much better, we want it to remain special and different.

I trust the Sushi team to contractually pay VCs for the strategic benefits they would provide using treasury funds, isn’t this better? Or the UMA proposal. Just never the 30% discount, it’s the wrong way to do it. We really don’t need to do things the same as TradFi, we don’t need to listen to them if they say this is the only way we get involved, then we say thanks but no thanks.