We support this snapshot because the MSS improves security by requiring multiple approvals for actions, ensuring more decentralized control and including more participants in the process. It also allows for funds to be returned to the treasury if necessary.
However, we are curious why the snapshot started before the Tally vote concluded. Is there a reason for this?
Thank you.
I support this proposal on Snapshot because I believe the DAO could benefit from it. Getting more people involved in DAO has always been a goal of mine and this proposal is set to doing exactly that. I voted FOR.
As mentioned above, we worked with several delegates on best approach. Ultimately, we felt it was right to pass an amendment to an active proposal so voters have complete clarity on what they are voting on and to ensure that this security change is implemented prior to tally closure so there is no chance it isnât in place if needed. We saw no benefit in waiting until after Tally as, of course, the passing of the Tally is still required for the broader proposal to pass at all. Thanks for the support!
@Tekr0x.eth @BlockworksResearch Thank you both for the support! Donât forget to also vote on the live Tally proposal.
Thank you for your detailed response. Your proposal presents an interesting challenge to traditional notions of earned influence in DAOs. While increasing participation is valuable, Iâm curious about how we balance this with ensuring high-quality contributions.
To better understand Event Horizonâs real-world impact, could you provide some additional data?
This information would help us evaluate the potential impact on Arbitrumâs governance and assess how Event Horizon balances increased participation with maintaining the quality of governance decisions.
I appreciate your work in tackling these complex governance challenges and look forward to your insights.
@EventHorizonDAO
I will answer on the merits:
cp0x is not part of the SpiralDAO team, but we are indeed a multisig signer responsible for the safety of usersâ funds. We are part of this multisig because we have a long-standing positive reputation in crypto.
Also, being in the ArbitrumDAO multisig does not mean that you are part of the ArbitrumDAO team - you are just a trusted signer.
The claims against us that SpiralDAO (of which we are not a part) uses non-public good practices are unclear.
Firstly, what exactly these practices are? - I do not know anything about this.
Secondly, as I said earlier - we are not part of the team.
You are getting personal in matters concerning the allocation of 7 million ARB to you, and cp0x does not ask anything from ArbitrumDAO. All we are saying is that many delegates have spent a lot of money and effort to have a voice in ArbitrumDAO, and you, with your proposal, will be able to nullify their efforts.
@Cp0x, thank you for acknowledging your potential conflict of interest.
Youâve voiced your lack of support half a dozen or so times. Itâs been noted and each time weâve attempted to explain the proposal to you. There isnât much more we can offer you other than the fact that providing a voice to those who donât have one is a) good b) not taking a voice away from anyone else especially given itâs a public good available to everyone.
Your proposal presents an interesting challenge to traditional notions of earned influence in DAOs.
Thank you!
Prior to the proposal we ran a very small test case at no cost to the DAO. With $40K in delegation we see about 30 voters per proposal showing ~$1,333 in individual voice incentives participation. This was all with a very small delegation to offer. Assuming similar conversion the public pool could attract, onboard and retain ~2625 individual retail voters (importantly, each with meaningful say). Total votes is cumulative as detailed in the proposal. But importantly, should this proposal garner the same level of support as the Snapshot, this would mark a clear before and after, as such extrapolating from prior data is likely not prudent nor the mark of good epistemics. This is why this proposal is set for a 1 year experiment.
Once more, cp0x and McFly your jointly shared and voiced opinion has been noted. In the interest of avoiding running in more circles via text, we will be hosting a public call in September.
I voted for the onchain proposal on Tally to Delegate to Voter Enfranchisement Pool and for the temp check on Snapshot to have the Arbitrum MSS manage the delegation process.
I think this proposal is a valuable experiment in distributing voting power that was previously locked in the DAO treasury to a unique set of delegates. The distribution of voting power in the Arbitrum DAO has become stagnant. It has proven difficult to get existing token holders to re-delegate and to get new token holders to delegate. I think this initiative fits in nicely alongside ARB Staking and the Delegate Incentives Program to help solve for voting power stagnation.
Although we were asked to be members of the original multisig, we are in favor of changing the operations to the MSS now that they have accepted this initiative under their umbrella. This should cut costs for the DAO and set a good precedent for future programs to follow.
Additionally, we are still in favor of this initiative as a whole as an easy way for new members to get involved in the space and collectively have some substantial input.
On behalf of the UADP, we are fully in favor of this change. There seems to be no negatives in this new change as the MSS and funds are already set up and directly decreases the funds needed to execute this proposal.
I am always in favor of this kind improvementâinvolve more of small voters into governance, especially the Event Horizon community is already proven effective on various protocols.
Also anti-sybil is necessary, but I still worries the requirement of Gitcoin Passport will block part of the small even tiny voters out of the governance.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and @Nyx, based on our combined research, analysis and ideation.
Weâre voting FOR this change to the original proposal in the Snapshot temperature check.
We support MSS taking over the responsibilities from the Oversight Committee.
This does not yet support the main proposal for which the on-chain voting is in the process; we will consider our vote on that one separately and post our thoughts here later.
Aligned with our previous perspective at Snapshot we will be voting FOR this proposal at Tally.
The changes between Snapshot and Tally are well-reasoned and align with the core ethos of our DAO. We believe this process is a valuable experiment worth pursuing. Effective decision-making is key to a successful organization, and any innovation in this area is highly desirable.
The FranklinDAO/Penn Blockchain Team voted FOR this proposal on Tally. We appreciate the work done by Event Horizon in giving retail voters meaningful influence in Arbitrum governance. We believe delegating 7m ARB to Event Horizon and placing them as the 15th largest delegate is reasonable, and so is their proposed compensation. We plan on supporting Event Horizon in their efforts in increasing retail voting power and participation in other DAOs as well.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to âFORâ on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Regardless of the outcome at Tally, it seems reasonable for the control of the ARBs to transfer to the MSS, as was agreed upon at its formation. Additionally, this transfer would result in significant savings in administrative costs.
Identify.Identify.Identify. Since the proposal is controversial, it would be better to wait until there are specific optimisations before making a proposal, and transferring the rights to MSS is a very appropriate proposal
I voted FOR this proposal on tally and also agree with the upgrade to MSS to manage this initiative.
I donât see any risks; rather, I see benefits for increased security while still allowing for experimentation.
DAOplomats is voting in favor of this proposal.
The MSS was created for moments such as this, so we would love to see the replacement of the oversight committee to the MSS happen and the associated funds for the OC returned to the DAOâs treasury.
Thanks for your support! Also be sure to vote on the main Tally proposal which is also concurrently live and which will use this MSS amendment you voted for.
We are in full support of the Event Horizon proposal. Empowering smaller ARB holders through collective voting is an innovative step towards increasing participation and fostering inclusivity in the Arbitrum DAO. The Voter Pass system, which enables individuals with lower capital to pool their voting power, aligns with the core values of decentralization and community engagement.
This proposal also addresses the critical issue of low voter turnout by introducing the Implicit Delegation model, which incentivizes governance participation based on commitment rather than capital. We believe this approach will bring more voices into the decision-making process, strengthening the DAO as a whole.
We look forward to seeing how Event Horizon enhances governance within the Arbitrum ecosystem and provides long-term value to the community.
In full support of the Event Horizon proposal.
Adding more information here after the GRC call with them.
One thing Iâd like to see from this proposal is a KPI or objective of onboarding new delegates to the DAO and working to create a pathway for delegate contributors. EventHorizon has the opportunity to teach individuals how to participate in governance as a voter and can further decentralize some of our voting.