Lampros DAO Delegate Communication Thread

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. Adjust the Voting Power of the Arbitrum Community Pool & Ratify the Agentic Governance Pivot
   Voted - B - Reduce the delegation to 100k
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting for Option B: Reduce the delegation to 100k ARB in the Snapshot Voting.

As we’ve shared in our earlier comment, we aligned with the original mission of the Voter Enfranchisement Pool. However, we believe the pool didn’t reach its full potential within Arbitrum, largely due to limited marketing efforts targeting the right audience. As I’m an individual voter in Event Horizon as well, I’ve observed the dynamics closely.

Looking at the current state of the initiative, the focus has clearly shifted away from the enfranchisement pool towards building agentic governance infrastructure. For example, during Event Horizon’s recent vote on their platform, 212 votes were cast. It’s unclear how many of these were submitted by human voters using agents versus the agents themselves. Based on our past observations, the vote count before agentic governance integration was noticeably lower.

Given that Event Horizon has moved fully toward AI agent development and is reportedly preparing a working group and an AGI-focused proposal, we believe it makes sense to scale down the delegation temporarily. Option B allows participants to feel meaningfully still involved while giving Event Horizon the space to test agentic governance within the DAO using a non-influential amount of delegated ARB.

A delegation of 100k ARB does not pose any governance risk, yet it enables EH to continue experimentation and provide useful data, such as how many unique users are actually using AI agents to vote and how the quality of participation is changing.

Also, thank you @cxgonzalez for directing towards the update post. However, we echo @Curia’s observation that the shared post doesn’t present the full metrics expected, such as historical voter breakdowns, engagement quality, or progress benchmarks. We look forward to a more comprehensive performance report that aligns with what was committed in the original Tally proposal.

Lastly, we see this vote as a way to give thoughtful space for experimentation while ensuring accountability in how delegated voting power is handled.

---

2. Wind Down the MSS + Transfer Payment Responsibilities to the Arbitrum Foundation
   Voted - FOR: Wind down the MSS
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting For: Wind Down the MSS in the Snapshot voting.

We sincerely appreciate the work of all MSS chairs and signers who have contributed their time and efforts to operate the program. Despite some recent operational challenges, the MSS played a crucial role in supporting multisig coordination during a key period of DAO growth.

As shared in our earlier comment, we believe that in the current environment, the most effective short-term path is to transfer MSS responsibilities to the AF, which has both the resources and compliance infrastructure to manage this transition until the OpCo becomes fully functional.

We also acknowledge the operational friction highlighted by @JoJo:

@JoJo

AF is needed, in every initiative, and almost in every transaction. As a signer, we always have to wait for the greenlight of AF from a compliance standpoint; this has also meant back and forth via email with them.

While this reflects the current reality, we hope that as OpCo takes shape, such dependencies on the Foundation can be reduced through better tooling and more autonomous operational structures. Until then, centralizing the responsibility with AF appears to be the most stable option, and we expect transparent communication from AF about the same.