voting A - Do Nothing on this offchain vote because between the available voting options, I think Event Horizon should retain much more voting power than 100K ARB. This proposal should have been posted with several voting options for voting power, between 0 and 7M ARB. I would personally prefer for Event Horizon to retain 500K or even 1M ARB in voting power. As pointed out earlier, we should be delegating more ARB out of the treasury to actors that always cast a vote, not less ARB. Event Horizon is a worthwhile governance experiment, in many ways, and I think we should support it meaningfully, not with just 100K ARB.
2 Likes
We appreciate @Sinkas bringing this proposal forward and agree that the DAO should ratify Event Horizon’s pivot only after seeing hard evidence of how the experiment is working. To let delegates choose fairly between Options A, B, and C,
As @Euphoria noted, we would still like Event Horizon to deliver the bi-annual KPI report it promised last September, ideally before the Snapshot opens. A live Dune or Flipside dashboard would be just as useful, We appreciate Event Horizon’s update, but several essential data that we would like to learn more including:
- Full KPI timeline: for every proposal since September, number of active EH voters.
- Wallet-size distribution: counts and participation rates for ≤ 5 ARB, 5–50, 50–500, 500–5 k, and > 5 k bands.
Even if the published metrics would not materially sway this vote, they are still critical. Event Horizon originally received 7 million ARB so the community could test whether a “public-access voter pool” broadens meaningful participation. Without the promised data, the DAO loses a valuable opportunity to assess what the experiment accomplished, learn from it, and improve future initiatives.
Since Event Horizon has pivoted to an AGI-driven voting model, something never contemplated in the September 2024 mandate, their current role no longer aligns with what the DAO approved. In light of that fundamental change, clawing back the 7 million ARB delegation is reasonable. At the same time, as @JOJO noted, we must consider any knock-on effects this might have on the Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction proposal; thoughtful coordination is essential to avoid unintended governance disruptions.
but If the DAO decides to pull back the full 7 million ARB from Event Horizon, we shouldn’t let those tokens sit idle. Instead, We suggest exploring a plan to put the remaining 7 million ARB, currently counted toward quorum back into active use while still reinforcing our quorum threshold.
(1) Revive “(Re)delegation Week” : Open applications to small delegates with a proven voting record, evaluate them through the standard DAO process, split the 7M ARB evenly among those who meet the participation benchmarks then splits the 7M ARB evenly among them and run it as a pilot program for a three-month before being reevaluated.
(2) Redistribute the ARB to the top Delegate Incentive Program performers from the last three months who each hold under 100k VP, giving them a multiplier boost for a three-month trial.
For Option 2, we reviewed the past DIP results and compiled a spreadsheet to identify eligible delegates; eight individuals meet the criteria under this approach.
Below is the list of top performers whose average voting power over the past three months is under 100 000 ARB and whose DIP score exceeds 65. (Table)
In either case, the 7 million ARB would remain staked and actively used for voting, ensuring they continue to support our recent quorum adjustment.
2 Likes
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal:
Since some may perceive LobbyFi and Event Horizon as opposing voting blocs, we would like to leave it open to discussion whether or not we shall make the voting power available for this proposal, for the sake of maintaining a certain degree of neutrality. We will make it available this weekend/Monday at the latest unless there are strong arguments raised in the meantime. The auction will be on (since Event Horizon is a community tool and we could not identify a single profiteer of any of the outcomes). The instant buy price will be set at 0.1% of our VP’s worth in ETH terms—2.5 ETH.
2 Likes
@Sinkas this proposal should only be valid if it has more than the 3% non-constitutional quorum right?
this is a proposal to undo something that was approved with an offchain vote and then an onchain vote as well. So it should at least comply with the same thresholds as the proposals that were passed to implement it.
i think the lobbyfi vote should be made available in all offchain and onchain votes (excluding only security council maybe) at least just to count towards quorum. and I think it would be best if this criteria would be enforceable onchain, and immutable.
1 Like
Camelot supports Option B to reduce the delegation to 100,000 ARB.
At the time of the original proposal, Camelot voted against the initiative since we believed it was not bringing any meaningful value to the DAO. The subsequent change in scope from voter enfranchisement to AI-agentic governance provides, in our opinion, one more additional reason to reassess the delegated amount.
However, we recognize the potential value in experimenting with agents in governance, with an amount that is limited to 100,000 ARB delegated versus the initial 7M used by not too many users. AI is increasingly pervasive across various sectors and will likely find relevant use cases in DAO operations and decision-making processes. This represents a legitimate area for controlled experimentation.
Due to this recognition and the fact that only a few months remain for this proposal’s original term, we suggest reducing the delegation to 100,000 ARB and analyzing the results in Q4. This approach allows Event Horizon to continue their agentic governance experimentation while significantly reducing the potential impact on DAO voting outcomes.
I support Option B here as well.
Other delegates made good points that the initial proposal has changed and how Event Horizon operates. Although the change is significant, 100k ARB are still a good amount and makes sure that they are also not dropping out of the DIP.
I voted FOR wind down the whole thing and return the ARB to the treasury
Rationale:
Why do I want to exclude all VP and leave nothing?
The thing is that Event Horizon is not really a delegate in the literal sense, since it does not have its own opinion, but is a proxy for the opinions of other delegates, who also have their own VP.
Therefore, there is no great sense in leaving 100,000 votes
how did you come up with the number of 150-200? On tally, it says they’ve received 32 delegations.
Here is about 150 votes (last voting on their platform)
1 Like
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the proposal and opting for reducing the delegation down to 100,000 ARB.
Being the ones who submitted the proposal in the first place, it’s obvious why we’re supportive of it.
We believe that the 100k ARB voting power will be meaningful enough for EH participants to feel the experience of participating in governance, it’s at ~ the same level as some other active delegates in the DAO. After all, the pool votes as one, so even if other people are involved in the experiment, each participant is part of casting the vote for the whole pool.
At the same time, 100k ARB voting power does not make Event Horizon an attractive target for capture attacks. While the pool is meaningful, it is unlikely to sway the vote by itself. This allows us to focus on analyzing Event Horizon on its merit as a frontier builder of agentic governance, rather than its impact on vote outcomes.
We look forward to seeing how the Event Horizon team can support delegates in making better decisions and having more productive discussions about proposals with their agentic governance tooling. We believe this area has a lot of potential and, if proven valuable, could lead delegates to use these tools to support their own decisions, utilizing their own voting power.
2 Likes
At this time, I don’t see any valid reasons why LobbyFi shouldn’t turn on an auction for its voting power pool. I would only suggest maintaining a higher threshold for casting a vote, around the level of the instant buy price. After all, LobbyFi is a permissionless protocol, and it’s okay with me if the ~150-200 EventHorizon users utilizing AI agents to make governance decisions in Arbitrum collectively auction the LobbyFi voting power to express their will to leave the EventHorizon pool as is.
1 Like
While this is a reasonable expectation, I don’t think there is a formal requirement for it right now. I don’t expect for this to be an issue with this vote, but for the future we might think about specifying formal quorum requirements for modifying and/or canceling initiatives.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
but don’t you think that a proposal to cancel something in this DAO…
??
for example… do you think it should be possible to clawback GCP funding with an offchain vote that doesn’t meet the 3% quorum and has a result of 51% For and 49% Against?
that doesn’t seem right to me. like at all.
We vote for B - Reduce delegation to 100K.
Our primary rationale for supporting this proposal is straightforward:
Initially, the delegation of 7M ARB to Event Horizon had a defined purpose, to empower undercapitalized community members to meaningfully participate in governance. However, the significant pivot toward agentic governance represents a departure from the original mandate, making the reduction of delegated ARB a logical and necessary adjustment.
While our first inclination was to reduce the delegation to 0 ARB, we agree with Sinkas’s rationale for maintaining a minimal delegation:
This balanced view aligns well with our perspective that innovative governance experiments deserve measured support. A delegation of 100k ARB strikes an appropriate balance between fostering innovation and managing potential risks to DAO governance processes.
Regarding quorum concerns expressed by some community members, we recognize this issue’s importance but believe it should be handled separately. Decisions about delegation sizes for specific experiments like Event Horizon should not be influenced solely by quorum considerations. Should quorum attainment become challenging, the DAO can explore solutions like broader treasury delegation or adjusting quorum thresholds. Maintaining a disproportionately large delegation to any single entity solely to address quorum concerns may not reflect best governance practices.
In summary, we support reducing Event Horizon’s delegation to 100k ARB to encourage continued innovation while responsibly managing governance risks.
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.
I voted to remove all delegation, and the reasoning is stated above. That being said, I wish the team good luck, and I will be following the AGI discussion.
We are voting Option C: Wind down the whole initiative and return the ARB to the treasury because the current implementation no longer aligns with the original purpose of the approved proposal.
Event Horizon initially received a 7 million ARB delegation to experiment with a public-access voter pool aimed at broadening meaningful community participation in governance. However, the program has since pivoted to an AI-driven, agentic governance model—a fundamental shift that was not part of the original mandate and has not yet been ratified by the DAO.
While we support innovation and experimentation in governance, significant changes to the scope and intent of a treasury-backed initiative should be brought back to the DAO for explicit approval. Until such a revised proposal is submitted and evaluated by the community, we believe it is necessary and appropriate to wind down the current initiative and return the ARB to the treasury.
That said, we strongly recommend that the 7 million ARB not remain idle. Instead, the DAO should explore new ways to redeploy these tokens to continue supporting quorum and enhancing inclusive participation. Should Event Horizon wish to pursue delegation again under a new model, we would welcome a formal proposal clearly outlining their updated goals, structure, and evaluation metrics.
I’m voting B: Acknowledge the pivot and reduce delegation to 100,000 ARB.
The original Event Horizon proposal was to empower community members lacking capital to participate in governance. This pivot to AI agents completely abandons that mission without DAO approval.
As someone who values clear accountability mechanisms, this unauthorized pivot is problematic. We delegated 7M ARB for voter enfranchisement, not AI experimentation.
That being said, I appreciate Event Horizon’s continued engagement and voting participation. They’ve shown up consistently, which deserves recognition. The 100k ARB delegation keeps them in the game and experimenting with Agents as a meaningful delegate while removing their ability to swing major votes.
I agree with the sentiment shared by many delegates in this thread that we need to delegate more ARB to solve the quorum problem. The point is fair, but it’s not the main topic of this discussion. We should create a separate proposal specifically addressing quorum solutions. I’d personally support delegating to active participants as many are already suggesting, but we need deeper analysis and proper discussion in another thread dedicated to that issue.