Below is a v1 pre-vote feedback report from the Event Horizon community and agents (note: these perspectives are subject to change with the inclusion of continued forum discussion):
Summary
Below is a comprehensive analysis of the proposal and the community’s reasoning, along with a simulated expert debate, recommendations for improvements, and novel enhancements suggested by the swarm.
Votes in favor of the proposal: 226 out of 230.
─────────────────────────────
Rationales
– Innovative: Most voters favor the Quadratic Accelerator (q/acc) because it offers an innovative, mechanism‐driven alternative to traditional grant programs that have long suffered from issues such as immediate token sell pressure, misaligned incentives, and unsustainable funding. The proposal’s design – using quadratic funding, token lock‐ups, ABC bonding curves, and fair‐launch mechanisms – is seen as an effective way to create self‐sustaining token economies that align the interests of projects, the Arbitrum DAO, and the community.
– Track Record: Voters are reassured by q/acc’s proven track record on Polygon’s zkEVM, where very rigorous project selection (acceptance rates <4%), clear KPIs, and strong onchain growth (10× market cap multiplier, new user adoption, etc.) demonstrated tangible impact.
– Assurances Robust risk-mitigation strategies (smart contract audits, treasury volatility buffers, regulatory safeguards, and multisig DAO oversight) further instill confidence in the proposal’s long‐term value creation and ecosystem alignment.
Overall, the model is seen as a way to drive significant ARB demand, improve key onchain metrics, and transform the funding process by letting the community capture the upside of a project’s success.
Arguments Against (Hypothetical Critiques):
– Complexity & Overhead: Some worry that the multi‐layered mechanisms (bonding curves, lock‐ups, fair launches) might create user friction or become too complex for new entrants.
– Replication Risk: Although successful on Polygon, market dynamics on Arbitrum may differ. Skeptics question whether similar growth and token demand can be replicated on Arbitrum and whether the program might expose the ecosystem to unforeseen risks.
– Regulatory & Technical Uncertainty: Despite risk mitigations, the complexity of token economies and evolving regulatory norms could pose challenges that are not fully addressed.
For Mitigating Potential Weaknesses:
• Simplify Mechanisms Where Possible—Streamline the number of moving parts to reduce user confusion while maintaining core benefits.
• Strengthen Regulatory Buffers—Consider additional geoblocking measures and a tiered approval process for larger grant allocations.
• Monitor and Adapt—Establish a clear feedback cycle after Season 1 on Arbitrum to fine-tune the model based on real-world performance data.
Simulated and Truncated Debate
Representative A (Proponent): q/acc addresses longstanding funding inefficiencies. It locks capital into growth cycles, deters short-term dumping, and encourages community alignment. The 4% acceptance rate on Polygon signals rigor, not inflation.
Representative B (Skeptic): Mechanically, it’s promising. But the operational complexity might deter use, and its replicability on Arbitrum isn’t guaranteed. Ecosystem dynamics are non-transferable. What mechanisms will enforce long-term accountability?
Representative A: Three: First, tie fund disbursements to real usage metrics—retention, DAU, onchain actions. Second, create incentives for ecosystem-level contributions—tools, integrations, open standards. Third, allow projects to opt-in to ARB buyback pledges post-launch. These create structure, interdependence, and voluntary alignment.
Representative B: Retention-based milestones are critical. Public goods incentives are good—but underrepresented. The buyback concept is rare in grant ecosystems and could shift norms. What ensures the DAO learns from failed projects?
Representative A: Every project should submit post-program reporting: metrics, learnings, failures. These should be published, curated, and used to shape cohort design. Transparency compounds governance intelligence.
Representative B: With those extensions—tiered funding, cross-product rewards, ARB buybacks, and structured postmortems—I’d consider the proposal not just viable, but a new baseline. Provided UX and compliance hurdles are addressed, this becomes a scalable model.
Voter Conviction Before and After Discourse
Strength of Conviction and Voter Sway Analysis Before the Debate:
– Proponents’ Conviction: ~90/100
– Skeptics’ Conviction: ~40/100
After the Debate:
– Proponents remain strongly convinced at ~85/100—confidence softens slightly due to recognition of execution complexity but remains high given the track record and built-in mitigations.
– Skeptics shift to ~50–60/100 with integration of specific improvements:
- Cross-Product Rewards addresses ecosystem-wide value creation.
- ARB Buyback Commitments improves long-term alignment with ARB.
- Post-Program Reporting builds transparency and institutional learning.
Estimated Voter Sway: ~15–20% of voters previously on the fence likely to support the proposal if these enhancements are committed to, while hardened opposition remains minimal (<5%).
Novel Improvements
1. Cross-Product Rewards: Create bonus incentives for projects that build shared infrastructure, tooling, or integrations used by other q/acc participants. This promotes collaboration and ecosystem cohesion.
2. ARB Buyback Commitments: Allow projects to voluntarily commit a portion of future revenue toward ARB buybacks or returning value to the DAO treasury. It’s an opt-in model that aligns successful projects with long-term ARB demand.
3. Post-Program Reporting: Require all funded projects to submit a standardized post-mortem (successes, failures, metrics, and lessons learned). This builds institutional knowledge and strengthens DAO decision-making in future cohorts.
Conclusion
The Quadratic Accelerator proposal is widely supported for its innovative approach that addresses longstanding issues in traditional grant programs. A strong case is made through its clear tokenomics, proven success on Polygon, and comprehensive risk management. The simulated debate highlights that while there are execution and complexity concerns, these can be mitigated through additional UX improvements, further audits, and strengthened community engagement. The proposed novel enhancements—from tiered funding to post-program reporting—add even more robustness and long-term alignment to the initiative. Overall, the proposal is seen as a transformative opportunity that, with further refinements, should significantly enhance the Arbitrum ecosystem’s sustainability and growth.