SushiSwap Drama Unfolds As Team Receives Several Accusations

SushiSwap is currently embroiled in a significant dispute over proposed alterations to its governance system. Concerns have arisen among users and a former associate regarding the suggested changes. The contentious proposal seeks to move assets via the Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO)-controlled treasury to a newly formed entity named Sushi Labs. Additionally, it intends to redirect all future airdrops to Sushi Labs rather than the DAO. These developments have sparked worries about community engagement and transparency within SushiSwap.

Competency Is Needed

The proposed governance modifications entail granting 25 million Sushi tokens to Sushi Labs, sourced through various channels like the Arbitrum (ARB) airdrop, business development, partner grants, Kanpai 2.0, Sushi 2.0, rewards, stablecoins, and Sushi House funds. Future airdrops to Sushi by protocols and partners would exclusively benefit Sushi Labs. However, discrepancies regarding the mentioned wallet holdings in the proposal have led to additional scrutiny.

Previously, the Sushi DAO had approved a ballot window to establish a foundational legal entity structure. Proponents of the proposal argue that updating the organizational framework is imperative as the project evolves. They stress the need for competent legal guidance to effectively represent the global presence of SushiSwap. Moreover, the proposal seeks to empower Sushi Labs with full operational responsibility for core product development to streamline decision-making processes.

Mounting Accusations

In response to these developments, Naïm Boubziz, a former member of SushiSwap, has accused the company of executing a genuine hostile takeover. Through scathing social media posts, Boubziz criticizes Head Chef Jared Grey alleging his intention to kill the community and the DAO while aiming to seize the entire treasury. Boubziz claims to have issued warnings for months, which were ignored under false pretenses. He further alleges deletion of snapshots without appropriate reaction and accuses the community of ignoring the truth.

Boubziz contends that the current governance structure of SushiSwap necessitates updates and emphasizes the importance of community involvement. His accusations intensify the rift between advocates for community involvement and supporters of the proposed changes, posing a critical juncture for SushiSwap. The ongoing signal vote on the controversial governance proposal has seen about 93% of participants voting no. Despite this opposition, a second vote is scheduled for April 9th to determine the fate of the proposal.