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 to reduce quorum from 5 to 4.5%, we have the following:
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 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.