Event Horizon Updates

[pedrob]

gm

@EventHorizonDAO

UPDATE: Transition to Agentic Governance

I think this is simply unacceptable. Announcing a transition to agentic governance when the proposal was something else and what the DAO approved was entirely different.

Your value proposition at the start of the discussions was the identification of a problem to be solved:

@EventHorizonDAO

there are over thousands of individual voters who participate in each vote despite having effectively no meaningful say. This should be rewarded. Moreover, there are likely tens of thousands more incredibly talented community members who are very capable of adding to the collective cognition of the ecosystem, but simply lack the capital means to have a voice and are left discouraged from voting at all.

What you are essentially saying here is that your large-scale experiment appears to have failed:

@EventHorizonDAO

Users want to be heard, yet they don’t want to ‘do governance’. This is one of the lessons we’ve learned through both our successes and failures thus far (mid-program report coming soon).

Since what you believed would happen once the necessary capital was made available to users as an incentive to participate has not materialized:

@EventHorizonDAO

One of the greatest barriers to participation is a lack of voice due to lack of capital. Implicit delegation and public access governance changes this. Implicit Delegation is a model by which the full public governance block mobilizes in favor of the consensus of those who do vote, thereby implicitly delegating the authority of those who don’t vote to those who do.

This is evident from the results of the five months during which the program has been running. In the discussions prior to the proposal’s approval, you estimated that you could attract over 2,600 voters with a meaningful say (double emphasis on meaningful say):

@EventHorizonDAO

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.

How can that meaningful say be replaced by AI agents?

Regarding the number of individuals, a review of the proposals voted on so far shows an average of 16 voters per proposal. Many of these voters are DAO delegates, meaning the net number is even lower if the goal was to incorporate or empower new voices.

That said, the latest votes did see a considerable increase in voters (between 80 and 90 in the last 3 proposals), though this is still low compared to the initial estimates. Maybe it has to do with the fact that you already incorporated the agents?

@EventHorizonDAO

Each voter is assigned a trusted, agentic consul to which they are the emperor. The human voter simply communicates their higher-level desires to their agentic consul, and the consul goes out into the digital agora and continues to represent those interests until told otherwise. This modality compresses the highly taxing governance process detailed below, into simple chat engagements with an AI representative.

The idea behind the proposal was not to have AI agents voting on behalf of users—which may or may not be valuable, I’m not evaluating that now—but rather to empower and increase the participation of people who had something to say. This is definitely not the same as AI agents carrying out some kind of participation with a disinterested voter giving instructions.

@EventHorizonDAO

However, in the process of making voting meaningful, Event Horizon made many of the pain points of governance more apparent. By bringing dozens of proposals across 8 DAOs under the same UI umbrella, Event Horizon unintentionally highlighted just how much friction remained in the standard DAO governance UX by requesting the user go through the process tens of times per week.

I also disagree with this conclusion. UX may suck sometimes but its not the main issue. What EH made apparent is that the random user simply isn’t interested in getting involved or participating, even when they have the opportunity to influence 7M in voting power. In other words, interest in participation is not driven by voting power.

I believe that if you intend to continue down this path, such a substantial modification to the proposal should go through Snapshot to reconfirm the DAO’s interest in continuing this experiment as it is now being presented.