What is this about?

The community is engaged in a discussion about a bond program proposal by Sushi for the Arbitrum platform. The proposal aims to transition from traditional liquidity mining to sustainable bonding using $ARB tokens and Arbitrum bonds to create LP pairs. The plan is to sell these on Sushi's website to increase liquidity. The proposal also includes a dynamic success fee structure and aims to diversify the DAO treasury with yield-bearing assets. However, the proposal has been met with skepticism from community members who question Sushi's commitment to Arbitrum and the need for $ARB liquidity. There are also allegations that SushiSwap copied the proposal from ApeSwap, which have been refuted by SushiSwap and a former ApeSwap contributor.

How is the community reacting?

The community reaction is mixed. Some members appreciate the innovative approach proposed by Sushi, while others express concerns about Sushi's commitment to Arbitrum, the need for $ARB liquidity, and the proposed 5% success fee. They also question the dismissal of traditional liquidity incentives and Sushi's engagement with ecosystem governance. Some members, like Kingofsparkles, Leon27, and Bond, are skeptical of the proposal, citing concerns about SushiSwap's history, the lack of details about the program's management, and the potential impact on the ecosystem. They also questioned the originality of the proposal, suggesting that it was copied from ApeSwap.

Why this is positive?

The proposal presents a strategic plan to grow the network and increase liquidity. It could potentially diversify the DAO treasury with yield-bearing assets, deepen liquidity pools, and enhance the value of the $ARB token. The proposal also introduces a transparent process for token allocation sales reports, risk minimization, and potential maximization. SushiSwap also clarified that the proposal includes a testing phase, and if it proves ineffective, it will not cost the DAO anything as unsold tokens will be returned to the treasury. They also defended their multi-chain approach, arguing that it provides Arbitrum with access to users across different chains and unifies liquidity.

Why this is negative?

The proposal has been met with skepticism and criticism from community members. Concerns have been raised about Sushi's commitment to Arbitrum, the need for $ARB liquidity, and the proposed 5% success fee. There are also concerns about the dismissal of traditional liquidity incentives and Sushi's engagement with ecosystem governance. The proposal's success relies heavily on several factors, including the performance of $ARB tokens and the achievement of an average ROE of 85%. If these conditions are not met, the expected outcomes may not be realized. There are also questions about the originality of the proposal and SushiSwap's ability to handle such a program, given their lack of experience in issuing bonds. The dispute has created tension within the community and raised questions about the trustworthiness of Sushi's proposal.