This will be the main communication thread for Event Horizon’s Arbitrum DAO governance votes.
ehARB-85: Arbitrum Growth Circles Event Proposal
Metagovernance Results: FOR
Below is a consolidated summary of the rationales for the Arbitrum Growth Circle proposal.
– Rationale 1 – Community Empowerment & Sustainable Ecosystem Growth:
A large majority of supporters (78 votes) argue that the proposal’s primary strength is its focus on building a scalable, peer‑led support network that empowers early‑stage protocols and fosters community-led innovation. They emphasize that by investing in knowledge sharing, mentorship, and network-building, the initiative will promote long‑term sustainability, transparent governance, and indirect benefits such as enhanced token utility and liquidity. These voters see the Growth Circle as a way to strengthen the ecosystem over time, indirectly supporting token value and broader adoption.
– Opposition Due to Misalignment with Immediate Token Value/Revenue Priorities:
A smaller group (12 votes) opposed the proposal because they feel its focus on community building and long‑term ecosystem development does not directly address their core priorities—namely, near-term tokenomics, revenue‑sharing, staking initiatives, or specific technical improvements. These voters are more concerned with initiatives that deliver direct, high‑yield returns or targeted technical upgrades and therefore view the Growth Circle as not sufficiently aligned with their aggressive or revenue‑focused investment strategies.
ehARB-83 Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget
Metagovernance Results: FOR
Below is a consolidated summary of the rationales provided for the Stylus Sprint Grant Program proposal, grouped by similar themes:
– Support for Arbitrum and Stylus Ecosystem Growth
Several voters emphasize that the proposal supports crucial ecosystem growth for both Arbitrum and Stylus, contributing to their long‑term success and further development. Count: 3 votes
– Funding Promising Unfunded Projects
Some voters highlight the importance of this program in funding high‑potential projects that were previously unfunded, thus helping to accelerate innovation and new ideas. Count: 3 votes
– Facilitating Innovative and Impactful Ideas
A few voters note that the program helps facilitate new, innovative ideas and has a positive impact on the broader ecosystem. Count: 2 votes
– Opposition – Need for New Grant Season and Application Period
One voter opposes extending the previous series of grants without reopening the application period, arguing that it should be treated as a new season. Count: 1 vote
In total, these themes reflect the views of 8 voters, with some voters mentioning more than one rationale in their response.
ehARB-82 Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program
Metagovernance Results: FOR
Below is a consolidated summary of the rationales for the Domain Allocator/Arbitrum D.A.O. Grant proposal, with similar themes grouped and the number of votes reflecting how many voters expressed that rationale (noting that some voters mention multiple points):
– Funding Promising Projects & Supporting Ecosystem Growth
Several voters emphasize that the proposal will fund projects that have been overlooked in the past and help drive growth in both the Arbitrum and Stylus ecosystems. Count: 3 votes
– Facilitating Innovative and Impactful Ideas
Some voters note that the proposal will enable innovative, high‑impact projects and ideas that can drive broader ecosystem progress. Count: 2 votes.
– Trust in the Program’s Success and Budget
Several voters mentioned a history of success previously seen including: “The Domain Allocator Program has been essential on funding great initiatives on previous seasons and I’m confident they will keep delivering value.” And, This is an important grant program to serve asks under 50k. The domains are well thought and it is the continuation of a successful program.
– Misalignment with Immediate Tokenomics & Revenue Priorities (Against)
Several opponents (8 votes) contend that while community building is valuable in the long run, the proposal does not directly address their primary interests in immediate token value gains, revenue sharing, or staking mechanisms. They feel that the initiative’s focus on broad ecosystem growth is too indirect to meet their short‑term, high‑yield objectives.
– Process Concerns – Need for a Fresh Application Period
One voter objects to simply extending the previous grant program without reopening the application process, arguing instead for a new season with a fresh application period
– Concerns Over Methodology & Strategic Fit (Against)
A smaller group (roughly 5) criticizes the underlying methodology—citing past performance reports and a predisposition to oppose proposals—as well as the overall strategic fit. Including: “The Domain Allocator methodology in this proposal is not a good one for a grants program this long as it was demonstrated by the Entropy report on last season projects.”
Final Overview: Out of 96 total votes, 79 support the proposal while 17 oppose it. The supporters almost universally see the proposal as a means to empower the community, enhance transparent governance, and build a sustainable support network that will ultimately boost token utility and value. In contrast, opponents focus on its lack of direct, immediate mechanisms for revenue sharing or token value improvement and raise concerns about its methodology or strategic fit for high‑yield, aggressive investment approaches. Forced votes—issued per external instruction—account for a handful of the opposition tallies.
ehARB-81 Approve the Nova Fee Sweep Action
Metagovernance Results: FOR
Summary of Votes and Rationales for Fee Collection Proposal
– Unanimous Support – There are no opposing votes, indicating broad consensus that this proposal brings efficiency and financial benefits to the DAO.
– Simplifying the Fee Collection Process
Multiple voters support the proposal because it streamlines and improves the efficiency of collecting fees.
– Supporting the DAO Treasury
Voters see this proposal as a way to ensure more funds are directed toward the DAO Treasury, strengthening its financial sustainability.
– Aligning with Updated Infrastructure
At least one voter supports the proposal because it aligns with improvements in the DAO’s operational framework.
ehARB-80 Non-Constitutional: Stable Treasury Endowment Program 2.0
Metagovernance Results: AGAINST
Below is a consolidated summary of the rationales provided for the treasury diversification proposal, with similar themes grouped and counts indicating how many votes mention each theme:
– Rationale 1 – Treasury Diversification for Stability
Voters emphasize that diversifying the treasury is key to enhancing overall financial stability. Count: 4 votes
– Rationale 2: Belief in the Growth of the RWA Ecosystem
Some voters note that a diversified treasury can support and benefit the growing real‑world assets (RWA) ecosystem.Count: 2 votes
– Rationale 3: Potential for Generating Consistent Yields
Several voters point out that the program is expected to generate consistent yields, which would contribute to both stability and growth. Count: 3 votes
– Rationale 4: Opposition – Preference for Existing Treasury Management Structures
One voter argues that treasury diversification should be managed under the existing Treasury Manager frameworks (TMC/GMC) instead of creating a new structure. Including: “This should be handled by Treasury Managers under TMC or GMC. It does not make sense to pay for 2 different control/management structures.” Count: 1 vote
– Rational 5: Opposition – Preference for an Alternative Use of Funds
One voter prefers allocating the funds elsewhere, indicating a different strategic priority. Count: 1 vote
In total, these themes capture the views of 9 voters, with some voters mentioning more than one rationale in their responses.
ehARB-79 OpCo: A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution
Metagovernance Results: AGAINST
Summary of Votes and Rationales for the OpCo Proposal:
– Streamlining DAO Operations (Efficiency & Management)
Several voters believe that OpCo will help manage DAO operations more effectively, reducing delays and improving execution.
– Enhancing Contributor Effectiveness
Some voters see OpCo as a way to empower contributors and improve governance participation.
– Managing Complex Initiatives Better
Some voters believe OpCo will help handle large-scale, complex DAO initiatives more efficiently.
– Addressing DAO Delays & Bottlenecks
One voter supports OpCo as a way to solve Arbitrum DAO’s inefficiencies and reduce delays. Including: “OpCo aims to help the draw backs of Arb dao, the delays it took while doing works, it would like to take things on hand and make it move faster”
– Concerns About Centralization & Gatekeeping
Multiple voters are concerned that OpCo could lead to excessive centralization, restricting contributor access and control. Including: “I’m worried that OpCo might lead to centralization or gatekeeping for further contributors. It doesn’t follow the ethos that I support.” And, “This will centralize operations of Arbitrum, if we truly believe on decentralization then this is something we should avoid.”
– Too Much Funding at Once
One voter believes the proposal requests too much funding upfront and suggests testing smaller initiatives first. Including: “this is too much money, all at once. We should just fund the OAT and see how that performs for example, and not the whole endeavor at once.”
Overall, supporters see efficiency, better management, and faster execution, while critics worry about centralization and excessive funding allocation.