Title: Dispute
Delegate Name: Event Horizon DAO
Reason for dispute (please detail):
As a preface, we would highlight that several delegates with half the delegation size or less have qualified with far fewer comments and whose comments were far less rigorous. In fact, some simply acknowledging how they chose to vote.The reason they are still compensated is largely due to the ‘large delegates help achieve quorum’ reasoning SeedGov applies. However, if this reasoning is to be used, it should be applied evenly and fairly, and at 7M in delegation last month, Event Horizon should qualify
We point this out not to specify any specific delegates or contest their compensation, but instead to say that we are concerned about the subjective assessment of this program. This has been a question mark in our minds for a while. And, now, when we are given 0 points for contribution after objectively providing more context, more content, more novel feedback, more timely responses than delegates (who are compensated) with less than 50% our delegation size, the subjective overwriting becomes a greater concern.
We would like clarity from Seedgov, as to why this is the case and why Event Horizon was objectively judged with far more subjective scrutiny than other large, but still much smaller, delegates. Unless this can be explained, it feels like highly partial judging
The rationales we’ve been providing have been consistently detailed and clear.
-
While the most common rationale for ArbOS Version 40 Callisto was along the lines of “no objection on my side” including SeedGov’s own rationale, Event Horizon provided the following detailed response:
-
On the Watchdog Grand Misuse Bounty Program again, many rationales from top delegates were a paragraph at most, Event Horizon provided a detailed and clear explanation of why we voted as we did including a detailed response for how similar proposals may be improved going forward. This is not merely a comment on length, but on content. Our rationales are extensively detailed and clear.
-
For the DRIP proposal, we highlighted, not only our overall rationale, not only the pros and the cons, not only proposed improvements, but also a full fledged debate with conviction scores, conviction deltas post debate, and an overall conclusion.
There are several other examples of the same level of elaboration by our delegation but the overall point should be clear. We struggle to see how this level of response is worth not even a single point.
In the Delegate Feedback, we’re grateful that SEEDGov has noticed that “Event Horizon has made significant efforts to upgrade the rationales and to add pre-vote feedback.” However, they cite a lack of “tangible impact” without specifying what that looks like. Several compensated delegates get by with “No objection” rationales, yet our extensive, curated, and quantified rationales broken down by points in favor, points against, debate, and conviction score do not qualify. It’s unclear what counts. Do rationales need to be liked? Replied to? This was never specified. What is clear is that there seems to be an inconsistent application of the rubric. And, again, why is this requirement and scrutiny applied to some delegates, such as EH, and objectively not to others? Often, when smaller delegates beg this question SeedGOv response that it is because the less scrutinized delegates have larger delegation. Delegation size cannot be the true answer as Event Horizon has a much larger delegation than several of these delegates receiving subject, fast tracking. It evokes question of if other unstated factors or relationships are being considered.
The feedback then goes on to say that given the recent proposal, which Event Horizon co-authored, to reduce our delegation so that the DAO could focus less on our delegation size and more on what we ship for the DAO, we should not be included in DIP because it is experimental. This is puzzling. Delegates, including Event Horizon, voted on that proposal to reduce our delegation. It is also a complete mischaracterization of the nature of the proposal. Delegates voted in favor of continuing Event Horizon. Delegates, crucially, did not vote on that proposal to cut support for our efforts. Event Horizon’s forum contributions ought to be assessed on their own merits. Bringing in this proposal, which ratified the DAO’s support of this experiment, is irrelevant and not a part of the DIP criteria.
Once we remove this proposal from the picture, it strikes us as a challenge to justify the assessment that our highly detailed responses are worth exactly the same as not posting at all. Further, it again brings into question the reliability of blackbox, subjective assessment and judging. We believe that a fair reassessment of our comments, on their own terms, should result in a significantly higher score. Beyond that reassessment, any further clarity is appreciated.
Given Event Horion rightfully deserves some delegate feedback points, the following should apply:
- [RFC] Proposal to Adjust the Voting Power of the Arbitrum Community Pool & Ratifying the Agentic Governance Pivot - #3 by EventHorizonDAO
- [Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction - #29 by EventHorizonDAO
- [Non-Constitutional] Invest in Builders & Ignite ARB Demand with q/acc - #15 by EventHorizonDAO
- No Comments
- Agentic Governance Initiative [AGI] & Agentic Governance Initiative [AGI] - #5 by EventHorizonDAO & Agentic Governance Initiative [AGI] - #26 by EventHorizonDAO
- DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP) - #72 by EventHorizonDAO
- No Comments
- No Comments
Finally, Event Horizon has been leading the Agentic Governance Working Group to co-create the future of ai governance with the community and delegates.