Why are you using VCs and strategic investors interchangeably in this argument?
It is a fallacy of composition, not all VCs are strategic investors, not all strategic investors are VCs.
Sushi needs strategic investors, even as Maki said, one of the largest advantages is working with VCs in their portfolio companies to increase partnerships such as inflow of new projects to MISO.
But, there are also large funds that currently own a ton of Sushi and are friendly in voting. It does not mean they are the strategic investors Maki is currently looking for.
Of course not. But, you know as well as I do, that you want to buy $10M, and would still want to buy $10M at the higher price but liquidity prevents that.
You also know that less funds operate in a liquid space, both due to capabilities and regulation, and so you have very good odds of scooping that up.
Once again I don’t fault you for that, but lets not pretend its altruism, it’s fair business, but lets be candid about it.
Once again, this feels like an unfair interpretation of words.
Not “needing” the money, does not mean there is no use for the money or that it won’t fuel growth.
But his main point was also the value of strategically added investors, which is something your model completely throws out.
So if you are suggesting the strictest interpretation of Maki’s words here in that he doesn’t need the money, and all your proposal does is get more money for the tokens then it isn’t ideal at all.
It also doesn’t address the fact that we are talking about a massive dilution.
Something that I think most community users are going to gloss over in your proposal with dollar signs in their eyes as they are just happy someone is going to help the price tag.
Taking these funds out of treasury and into circulation all at once is dilution that rapidly offsets the cash value captured by them, and leaves them in the hands of funds saying ‘trust us we wont sell’ rather than ‘hey we can’t sell’
In the VC model that dilution can be spread, and should be spread across multiple years.
You and I both know, that overall this deal is the most favorable to your fund, and once again, I’d have less issue with it if you weren’t trying to present it as some rose tinted robinhood play.
I think your criticism of the current VC proposals is absolutely fair and reasonable.
I think your counter proposal is actually worse, but will get the masses to line up as they think it will pump their price.
But, if you really think you will bid over the market and not sell, like Arca has claimed then its simple:
- Revise your proposal to include a minimum 3-year vest with a minimum 6-month cliff on all purchased tokens at this higher price.
You’ve said you are willing to put your money where your mouth is, and that it should be no problem buying Sushi at these prices, and that you would hold long term.
So as long as you are willing to put the same lockup restrictions on your proposal and stop comparing apples to oranges, then you are actually proving your conviction.