# \[RFC\] Proposal to Adjust the Voting Power of the Arbitrum Community Pool & Ratifying the Agentic Governance Pivot **URL:** \ **Category:** Finalized AIPs\ **Tags:** delegation, proposal, proposal-discussions\ **Created:** [May 22, 2025, 10:54pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280 "2025-05-22T22:54:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 34
**Author:** ![JoJo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jojo/32/2666_2.png) [@JoJo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/JoJo)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2025, 9:29am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/34 "2025-05-31T09:29:37Z")
> [@\[Constitutional\] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-constitutional-quorum-threshold-reduction/29145/1): > > I am have not been following with a ton of attention the event horizon evolution but I know that both you and @krst have instead had a keen eye toward it, questioning if it was still executing based on mandate, if it would still make sense in the optic of what was it voted for etc. > > Is pretty clear at this point that they are taking a different road from where it started. And it’s ok, since 1 year in crypto is a lot of time and pivots and changes can happen. > > One thing I am very afraid of: option B and C might just be not realistically achievable right now. > > With the current [constitutional proposal](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-constitutional-quorum-threshold-reduction/29145) to reduce quorum from 5 to 4.5%, we have the following: > > > [@\[Constitutional\] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-constitutional-quorum-threshold-reduction/29145/1): > > > > As of April 2025, with ~4.3B ARB in votable tokens (formula is total supply of ARB token, which is 10B, minus the amount delegated to the [exclude address](https://arbiscan.io/address/0x00000000000000000000000000000000000a4b86)), the quorum reduction would decrease the requirement by approximately **25 million ARB tokens** , bringing the effective quorum from ~215M to ~190M ARB. > > if we strip event horizon of 6.9 or 7 millions of votes, we would effectively negate a good quarter, numerically wise, of the proposal above. Unless, of course, we find a way to redelegate these 7 millions to other entities but knowing that what happend to event horizon was more of an exception than a rule and that we never pursued this road for other delegates it feels unrealistic to think it might happen in a short timespan. > > I’m personally slightly neutral/negative on agents for governance. I have had a few calls with a few teams working on these iterations, and I have always suggested incorporating a series of data sources and behaviours consistent with what @danielo recently posted in a [twitter thread](https://x.com/_Daniel_Ospina/status/1925707588613656644) to even try to get something that is not a simple rubber stamp. > > This to say, I don’t love the pivot of Event Horizon, but I am way more concerned about losing 7 millions in active voting power in the same moment in which we are just putting a bandage on the quorum looking for stronger long term solutions. > > As it is today, I would vote in favor of option A, not specifically to support EH, but to ensure the 7 million arbs stay active in the pool of active voters. Flipping my stance here, and voting in favour of reducing the voting power of Event Horizon to 100,000. I have spent the last few days talking to several delegates, specifically - delegates that have been close to event horizon in term of observing how it behaved in the last 8 months - delegates that have been using Event Horizon in the last 8 months - delegates that have never had any interest whatsoever in Event Horizon. I have to say, I approached the problem from the wrong point of view. First, the major flaw: comingling the current quorum problem with this proposal. Yes, we are struggling more and more in reaching quorum; but it doesn’t mean we need two mix two very different situations. At most, this proposal should be _another_ reminder that we collectively need to put more effort to increase the delegated amount of ARB. Second, the specificity of the request. At the time I voted in favor of EH because the idea of allowing smaller delegates and holders to access an higher pool of VP was potentially a good idea. What we have seen tho, and this came also from the chats I have had lately, is that this didn’t specifically happen: the product didn’t really get too much traction apparently. Now, we have this pivot toward agents. As stated above, is something I don’t like. Is just too easy to fool agents, is just quite complex to plug in _all_ the sources you would need for an agent to behave as you want. I don’t believe that, as it is now, governance is ready to use efficiently AI. At the same time as other posted it would be shortsighted to not think that AI will have a pervasive role in our life and also in DAOs. For this reason, instead of totally disbanding the initiative, I am voting to keep running the experiment through agents with a lower amount of voting power, an amount that will not bear any tangible consequence on governance but will also allow us to gather some data for the few remaining months of the initiative. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280)._