[Withdrawn] Sushi Phantom Troupe - Strategic Raise

Oh look at that! Our strong commited VC supporter Arthur0x / DeFiance Capital (defimaximalist.eth - lmao) is dumping Sushi again as soon as the market picks up a little bit, when it becomes clear their little scheme has been exposed.

Let’s hope if we get anything out of this whole drama, it is to finally expose these leeches for their true colors!


Would be better executed as limit orders to prevent price impact and slippage. However what would prevent a few and misaligned actors to fill the entire order leaving other potential participants to incur slippage in order to participate? I think there are ways to get this done without any sort of discount- which is the general sentiment of the community. An interesting proposal nevertheless and appreciate taking the first step

Thanks, I added the limit order suggestion. Could you elaborate more on what you mean by “misaligned actors filling the entire order”?

Same would hold for any governance proposal no?

Hello apologies I do not know the best place to put this but strike price for the UMA success token should absolutely be $69 - exactly 3x of previous ATH. I don’t think this should be a controversial target.


Hey, I checked the site out but when I try to (read more) after clicking on the proposals it seems like theres a broken link. Not sure if its just me but I cant see more than the title after getting sent to the proposal page.

Hey @Greatmood! Everything looks fine on my end. Can you give me more details to check on?

Thanks again for inviting us to the Community Forum today. Great discussion. As mentioned, if anyone is interested in connecting 1:1 to learn more about Lightspeed or whatever topic you want to riff on, I’m free 9-midnight PT tonight. Would love to connect with folks in the community.


Just registered for just my 2cents… Hope it helps. I"m just a retail investor.
Listening to Sushi Phantom Troupe #4 YouTube I’ve come to some opinions that I would Like to share.

1)The timing of this financial/investor need its at best suspicious, They couldn’t do it while the price was $15-$20 plus the need was not there then, but it is now here where the price is a third/fourth from all time high, Was it a coincidence?

  1. From what I seen the gentleman Somary ask a question about the timing of this funding timing and all I’ve heard as a response from Omakasebar was the best snow job dancing around and not really answered the real motive for the timing of this rushing funding like now, was pretty vague to say at least in my opinion… while the price wont run from TWAP for the past 30days ?. I believe, to put to rest and without any questions regarding the Sushi team timing of this proposal there should be a 90 days TWAP for the price to be offered to those new investors/partners. They should share both upside and downside like most investors hodlers of Sushi. And while some dubious institutional investors behind the scenes were dumping sushi relentless for a lower TWAP, sounds as they knew about the the deal to be had at a lower TWAP. Community can restore that faith by making it more average, make the TWAP over the past 90 days or 120days.

  2. Arca done a good thing here by opening the discussion, but Jeff Dorman strikes me as the Wolf in Sheep clothes… Way to aggressive and pushy for my liking, especially with planting the seed for warrants, which is common knowledge in the legacy/stock brokerages as diluting the heck out of equity. Also he seems to push pretty aggressive the time table when things should happen, Why?
    TWAP maybe, I dont Know. Also didn’t like his attitude about saying how big those billion dollars firms are and a measly few millions not gona make a difference for them… If that’s the case they should just not slap people in the face with their bigness and ignorance for the little guys. Again that’s just my opinion.

Overall I’m more positive and hopeful today of the progress for Sushi financing issues from a week ago, when clearly was downright depressive. Hope some of my opinions and observation will be of some use and encourage other to participate for further improvement of Sushi ad-hoc treasury dilemma/issue…

I’m hopping to get an direct answer of why Now, when prices are at the lowest its been on Coinbase this year. Thanks in advance! And may Sushi force be with you.


BTW, who ever gets the treasury Sushi already gets a discount but not buying on the exchanges and not pumping/chasing prices on the upside.Now they want options, too? It almost seems they doing psyops that they are needed, when in fact is the other way around and they see where the future is. Let them sweat it and let them buy at higher prices if that’s what they want, if not they always have a bridge to sell you. That is not to say that Sushi cant benefit from legacy experience, yes they can but not when your getting ripped off for something they might not even deliver anytime soon!

1 Like

interesting. Just a thought for you: maybe if we are where we are today as opposed to one week ago, it’s exactly because said strong people/opinions stood up for the community and banged their fist on the table?
I see it more as a positive than anything else.


Right on, better late than never. The only thing that worries me its the VC infecting crypto with their back room deals reserved for the select ones. Transparency, no middle man, inclusiveness its hard to come by. I guess the human factor its the week point in crypto and where the money friction can infiltrate, We shall see how it’ll play out. Heck they should do an air drop to sushi owners for same as those VC… if you ask me…

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

1 Like

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)
Spot: $8.36
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.


well done
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?