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
So if you think it will go up a lot and are sure of the floor, buy the range token.
Is that right?
This couldâve made sense back in the beginning. Weâre 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 âownâ 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 wonât be so keen on it.
Again, this wouldâve 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 guysâSBF here!
Disclaimers: (a) Iâm not involved in this raise (though Iâd be super happy to be); (b) obv I hodl a fuck ton of SUSHI; (c) these views are all my own and donât represent the views of any companies; (d) not investment advice etc., (e) Iâm currently doing a raise for FTX and so have lots of thoughts from that
Some brief thoughts here:
overall those numbers are decent so I think this is a decent round, though with the big caveat that I donât 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 isnât 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 
Another idea, building on the above:
Benefits:
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. Weâve read all of the comments in the thread and are grateful for everyoneâs feedback.
First, a brief introduction of Lightspeed:
And, a bit more about me:
Why we are excited to partner with Sushi:
What strategic value can we and other venture investors bring?
What does it mean for us to act in good faith here?
Why would we act in good faith?
Because capital is commoditized today, being a VC doesnât 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 weâve 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 doesnât need capital. However, we think that raising from value-add funds could really help build out Sushiâs 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 theyâve backed and how helpful the fund ended up being to the companies they have invested in.
Does the lockup justify the discount?
Thatâs up to the community. Weâre 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. Weâre 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
Hi,
Guys this plan is awful for one reason - Itâs 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 didnât 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 downâŚ
PS Nothing wrong with having the discussion, thanks to all
Why do the vcâs need a discount? If they believe in DeFi and vision why not buy in at market? Itâs definitely a dip.
Second, in the way venture math worksâŚproposed 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.
Iâm excited about DeFi because itâs different. Itâs 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 wouldnât 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.
Iâm 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, isnât this better? Or the UMA proposal. Just never the 30% discount, itâs the wrong way to do it. We really donât need to do things the same as TradFi, we donât need to listen to them if they say this is the only way we get involved, then we say thanks but no thanks.
Again, to review from a strictly quantitative perspective, the discount is warranted if there is a required lockup. To expand this calculus - if the proposal is settled in SUSHI as opposed to xSUSHI due to concerns of diluting existing holders then such a discount is further warranted as it represents unrealized capital efficiencies from not utilizing SUSHI during the lockup and vesting periods.
Its not about being quantative. Itâs about being fair.
If such terms are available to VCs and not ordinary token holders, this is not fair.
There is a reason they want the discount, and that is, they are going to make a load of money with it. Nothing wrong with that but the opportunity should be shared fairly.
Loyal holders probably plan to hold for more than 2 years, they donât get any discount.
30% discount is a terrible look.
I want VCs involved! But dare to be different and find a better solution to getting them involved. Their contribution is desired but the discount frankly puts gives all the power to them ie will they provide such Strategic help to offset the value of the discount. At least there should be better ways to do thisâŚ
Per proposal, âWe would also offer a public segment of up to 10 million for community members willing to participateâ So there is some degree of fairness at least to new entrants or those that want to add additional capital.
Those that already are all in you can argue it is a bit unfair to them. But those people will need to determine if they are willing to accept this proposal regardless because the strategic benefits that VCâs can bring are worth it.
I am myself still on the fence with this proposal because of the unfairness to this group who are already all in. But I am confident in the team. If this agreement is structured properly (the right numbers, assurances that VC will offer these strategic benefits (vs being free riders), and get VCâs to agree to terms to mitigate possible unintended consequences of this proposal then I think this is a pill worth swallowing.
Side note: One unintended consequence we should be aware of is that VCâs currently invested in Sushi dump their tokens and rebuy at a discount. I think itâs important that Sushi team has clear terms and makes actions such as this disqualifying. If done right this can be great but this needs to be done right.
OK, letâs try and get responses to your 3 points then, itâs important, thank you.
For me on Strategic benefits, I would just emphasise what others have said in that 21 VCs cannot provide any valuable benefit. It would need several team members full time to work with so many. It should be 4 selected VCs no more. Otherwise it looks like we are giving VCs free ride for some other reason.
The other 17 VCs can presumably participate in the x million offered fairly to everyone else. Perhaps you want to make this segment larger to avoid the criticism that VCs are being given discounts in return for nothing tangible. The community should not be disadavantaged, as it is currently.
I suppose if the community did not want to take the 30% discount for long term, then fair enough but this wonât be likely in my opinion. How about looking at Cream Finance, they offered multi year lockups for additional % and most was taken up by compound finance. But it was fair.
iâve done a number of startups had successful exits and interacted with vcs including raise money.from them. i also have vc friends. not junior level associates but general partners.
it is fun as founders to be wined and dined and treated like superstars. itâs fun to go to the super nice offices be introduced to famous people and they are super charming when they want to be.
bottom line though is their job is to run money and they will stab this entire community through the fucking face if push comes to shove and it makes them a bit more money. that is what their investors pay them to do. if you want to see something ugly watch a bunch of vcs muscle out a founding team that put their heart and soul and lives into a project to get better returns. vc money is the most expensive money you can take, and most vcs will tell you the same in private. they will not hesitate to wrest control of the protocol from the community if that is what it takes to enhance the return.
Many VCs add little value beyond the money they put in. Which is fine. Usually, thats their value! You need capital and they have it. Anything else is usually a bonus. An intro here and there that may or may not help and some advice that you already know about anyway is all you can expect.
The only place i can see vcs helping is from the regulatory side and they better bring in some heavy ex sec/fincen chairmen who know how the system works and have a proven track record of helping companies navigate similar regulatory waters. Most donât. most just talk a good game about their network and people they know and hardly deliver after they get their shares.
my suggestion:
bring in maybe 1 or 2 vcs with a small amount of money at market price who the team thinks will be most beneficial. this is already a discount since it is hard to buy a large quantity without moving the price as suggested above. if they arenât interested in it at todayâs depressed market rates they arenât interested in the first place. they just want in on a firesale.
if one vc goes above and beyond then award them with tokens from the treasury. why pay up front?
if you let these guys in on such discount you will do more damage to the sushi community then anything you will gain in regulatory help. itâs not a great look after what has transpired in other defi projects.
100%. You guys have done such a fantastic job, you donât need VCs, you donât need their capital. You have done better than you would have with their help from the beginning. Why risk this changing?
Iâm a former founder and current crypto operator. Iâve raised money from some of the funds @0xMaki helpfully brought to the table, invested alongside another few and spent time with at least 3 or 4 the GPs I expect will actually get involved with Sushi after the USDC hits.
Hereâs some real talk:
I think this raise is a good idea. The basic reason is that, if you raise from the right VCs, theyâll fucking fight for you, and thatâs worth a ton.
If you raise from the wrong VCs, theyâll do fuck-all for you, be a pain in the ass, and then dump ASAP.
^^^ @SBF nailed it here. What you want to do as a project leader is fill your cap table with the collection of VCs who will provide the things you need.
That can be intros to portfolio companies, recruiting support, regulatory guidance or just a shoulder to cry on.
What it is NOT is money.
What it also is NOT is 21 VCs who all do the same thing. And donât have much skin in the game.
Because, why?
For example, Amy Tong Wu may be an enormous value add. But Lightspeed just raised a $4 billion fund. How much can she actually justify devoting time and resources to Sushi ⌠if her check size is only $3m?
Now imagine having 21 clones of her ⌠all doing almost the exact same thing! 
(Sorry Amy! I am only singling you out because of you happened to post first! I actually think you are probably lovely!)
A better path forward
Based on this reasoning, I suggest we consider doing the following:
1. Retain a reasonable size treasury sale, but reduce the number of big VCs in the round. This has two key effects: it gives each VC more skin in the game and it makes it easier for each GP involved to justify devoting additional time and resources from her or his fund to the project.
Remember. Each GP supports a portfolio of companies. We will never be the biggest or the hottest - except now!
2. Choose each VC based on a specific contribution that we want. This is like arming yourself for an expedition. What do you really want? 5 crossbows but no boots or food?
Hell no! You want what you need to survive - crossbows, a battle axe, food, water, tents. So we should use this moment to get all the supplies we need!
3. Bring in a bunch of little guys who will have outsized incentives and power to help usâŚfor very small allocations. This is the flip side of the skin in the game problem.
For only $5m, you can bring in 50-100 strategic angels who will do all sorts of high-value-add tasks for you from post great memes to get a dev out of jail. Again, however the challenge is selecting the right ones. You do not want 50 CMS interns! But ROI from getting a healthy collection of angels? Enormous because the incentives are so strong.
In sum:
Tokenactivist raises a good point. How does $3M move the needle for a $4B fund? The answer is it doesnât. I canât speak for every investor here, but Lightspeed takes a crawl / walk / run approach to building long-term relationships. Our top portfolio positions are $100M+ investments over multiple rounds. Our first investment may be small, but if we invest even $100k in a project (which we have), our reputation is on the line, and the anticipation is to increase position (e.g. via spot) over time. Not every investor takes an active role, not all active roles are good for a company, and not every company wants an active investor. The team/community should decide what kind of value they want, then do references to learn if an investor has a history of providing that.
This sounds exactly right. Most of the âbetterâ VCs will write small checks early and scale up with the company. Itâs why they set up growth funds, keep dry power and jealously guard and use their pro rata rights!
But how would that work here?
What the VC funds are buying now are tokens that already have fixed supply and a market price. Selling the VCs these tokens at a discount to the market price dilutes our treasury (and undercuts existing token holders).
If we scale this up in the future, we will just further dilute the treasury because of the discount.. In fact, each time we offer the VCs a bigger slug, we will be undercutting the existing token holders by more and more money!
Is this really what we want to do?
Iâd strongly encourage the team and treasury to just allocate large slugs to the VCs they most want to include - not to gear up for future sales at below market prices.
Great Points.
The other thing that is yet to be explored but is critical is what âstrategic inputsâ mean.
In CeFi, of course, it means many things ( talent, merger, intros etc.), but in a community-driven business, these are organic to a successful protocol. Any large protocol like Sushi is naturally attracting these. An argument here is that DeFi can be broad-based, but that I think doesnât require a Venture Fundâs intros 
I would argue that there has be a roadmap on what Strategic inputs a VC brings to a table that warrants a discount. If they donât meet the roadmap, then there has to be some repercussion for the same. I do know these are nebulous, but at least a shot has to be given.
In the absence of the above, what Tokenactivist says makes sense. Get someone who has significant Skin in the game OR is commit to a roadmap that is in. I mean, you canât imagine playing the same game in a new financial ecosystem being built, which in a way is not kind of aligned to large pools of money controlling things
If not, then diversify a lot as the probability of getting a big strategic lever increases.
Hi everyone, Iâm Franklin from Pantera Capital. I love the discussion happening here and wanted to share more detail on the value that Pantera brings as a potential co-lead for Sushiâs strategic raise. Weâre also planning to join the Community Call tomorrow and look forward to hearing from others in the Sushi community.
Quick rundown on Pantera Capital:
Weâve been investing into the blockchain ecosystem since 2013, with 100+ investments across cryptocurrencies, early-stage tokens, and venture-backed companies. Over that time, weâve grown our focus and expertise in areas like fiat on-ramps, scaling solutions, developer infrastructure, DeFi and other decentralized applications - with an extensive base of resources, best practices, and team members to support projects and companies building on-chain and off-chain.
We invest in teams with a clear vision for advancing the blockchain ecosystem towards greater utility and adoption, with the ability to execute and lead. Our portfolio includes companies and projects like Alchemy, Wyre, Coinbase, Circle, Bitstamp, Bitso, Arbitrum, BitGo, InstaDapp, Terra, Audius (publicly disclosed list here: Portfolio | Pantera).
Weâre long-term investors and early adopters, who bet with conviction. Weâve been through bull and bear markets with our founders, fighting in the trenches and through the darkest hours to help our teams keep building great tech and products for their users. Weâve been an educational resource and âfirst stopâ for the institutional world and mainstream enthusiasts to learn about crypto - weâve been able to translate the what / why / how of Bitcoin, Ethereum, DeFi, Web3, etc. for new audiences and we take huge pride in that responsibility & privilege.
About me:
As part of the Pantera investment team, my focus is on supporting and accelerating our portfolio teams - building out the tools and resources for hiring / talent, business development & partnerships, marketing / PR, M&A strategy and rolling up my sleeves with founders to break through walls and get shit done.
I was the first team member to propose SUSHI as an addition to our portfolio and have actively advocated for SUSHI as one of the most important and exciting projects and communities in DeFi amongst our network, including trading partners, centralized exchanges, and other investors. One of the more visible occasions here, where we shared our support for xSUSHIâs listing on Aave - also the first time we publicly disclosed our SUSHI position: https://twitter.com/FranklinBi/status/1359683748229308417.
Prior to Pantera, I was at J.P. Morgan where I helped launch the blockchain team in 2015 and built out the firmâs early strategy / R&D in blockchain and crypto before I left to work directly with early-stage crypto / DeFi companies in 2018.
What value does Pantera bring?
Hiring support: Sushiâs team and community are fantastic, but constrained on capacity and will inevitably need to scale. Our jobs board and talent network is a lightning rod for new talent entering the crypto / DeFi industry. We see great candidates leaving Wall Street / Web 2.0 / FANG companies for crypto and our goal is to connect them with the best teams we know. Talent is one of the biggest bottlenecks for the DeFi industry to reach its potential and therefore one of the highest-leverage activities we can help with. We have an in-house recruiter, a deep network of recruiting firms, an active candidate database - all of which has helped our teams get hires (not just candidates) for everything from smart contract engineers and product managers to CFOâs and biz dev leads.
Portfolio / Industry connectivity: Sushiâs built out a strong network of partners and relationships, as well as a solid playbook for fostering that within the community. Therefore, our added value for Sushi in connecting with potential partners inside or outside of our portfolio would be less about getting a âfoot in the doorâ and more about accelerating the pipeline - by navigating to the decision makers, uncovering thoughtful ways to partner with mutual benefit, finding the partners who can help crack open new markets or products.
Technical / Market research: The sands are constantly shifting in crypto and itâs immensely difficult to track the latest and greatest developments, even for a project like Sushi thatâs often been ahead of the curve in testing / experimenting / shipping. Having a partner whoâs constantly vetting new tech and solutions can be critical to spotting the next big shift - e.g., which Layer 2âs should we focus our Engineering resources on? where should we prioritize cross-chain bridges & liquidity? what new tools should we be using to ship faster or improve scalability / security / UX? While Sushi hyper-focuses on executing the product roadmap and growing its usage, weâd help constantly scan the horizon for critical opportunities / risks emerging in the crypto ecosystem.
Resources / Vendors / Best practices: Over the years, weâve taken many lessons learned from our portfolio teams on everything from regulatory strategy to recruiting to bootstrapping communities & liquidity. Weâre also constantly building out a bench of vetted vendors who uniquely serve crypto companies / projects, e.g., security audit firms, law firms, market makers, insurance providers, etc. Itâs funny to call anything a âbest practiceâ in crypto because of how quickly things evolve, but we do our best to collect those lessons learned in real-time and share them. This also helps teams like Sushi save a ton of time and anxiety re: finding and vetting the right vendors.
Visibility / Marketing: Weâve built up an incredible audience over time through our monthly Blockchain Letters, conference calls, and annual Summits. Over 100k+ institutional investors, CEOâs, industry leaders - theyâve all looked to us to help them understand the most important topics / trends in the crypto / blockchain industry and the companies / projects working on them. As Sushiâs product set and narrative expands, weâd help carry that message to new audiences to help Sushi uncover new opportunities and gain visibility.
Itâs getting late here and Iâm winding down a 20+ hour workday, so will add more to this post as needed and also follow up on specific topics. Hugely appreciate the chance to present our perspective and big props to everyone participating actively in this discussion (0xMaki @SBF @paperhands2 amywu OmakaseBar pegbit) - itâs not a decision to be taken lightly and Iâm hopeful that weâll find the best course forward.