Thanks for the proposal, @Sinkas I am voting B: Reduce delegation to 100k. In my opinion, @EventHorizonDAO adds value to the DAO by experimenting with new governance mechanisms and tools.
Their recent pivot toward AI Agents is very promising; however, this wasn’t their initial mandate. A delegation of 100k voting power seems appropriate, as it allows them to participate in governance discussions without significantly impacting strategic DAO decisions through an experimental mechanism.
In my view, quorum reach is a separate issue that should be handled independently. Really eager to see the result of the Agentic Governance Initiative [AGI] and what can be done with AI agents within Arbitrum.
Honestly, this is hard for me because we are talking about cutting quorum so the timing of this proposal is unfortunate. The pivot to AI-agentic voting is cool and fun but totally different from what we approved.. While I love that Event Horizon is experimenting, 7M ARB is massive voting power for something we haven’t actually signed off on.
100k ARB is a lot lower than I would like to see them get… I would love to see them get reduced down to 500k ARB - 1M ARB so that their vote still really counts, and they feel responsible to keep participating… but they aren’t going to swing almost any votes.
I’d love to see more programs like this though, where ARB gets delegated to active delegates or used to promote new delegate programs to help us meet our quorum requirements. We need more engaged participation in governance… It sucks to take an active delegate off the list. I’d love to see a Retroactive DIP distribution… maybe especially focused on people that are actively engaging but don’t have enough ARB delegated to them to get DIP.
The reason is that the new direction is radically different than what Event Horizon passed as a proposal, and the new direction should be a new proposal.
We see with concern that EH changed direction without seeking the consent of the DAO. It shouldn’t have to fall to L2Beat to hold EH accountable. As such requesting a new proposal (and proper accountability) feels like the least the DAO should demand from vendors.
I think it’s nuanced; we didn’t have a proper discussion on that topic, and we probably should, but not within this thread. Regarding this proposal, I expressed my view in the previous comment.
I’m voting for option B because I think Event Horizon’s new AI voting idea is cool, but they shouldn’t have so much power. It keeps them in the game without letting them control everything. Feels like a fair middle ground for the community.
We appreciate the original intent behind Event Horizon’s proposal and their continued efforts to experiment with governance participation. However, we’re in favor of reducing the delegated amount to Event Horizon in light of their clear pivot toward agentic governance which is a meaningful shift from the original mandate centered on community enfranchisement.
Delegation from the DAO treasury carries strategic weight. It must be tied to clear, transparent mandates that reflect the will of the DAO. In this case, the delegation was granted to empower more individual community members to participate directly in governance and not to test agent-led delegation models.
The shift toward AI-agentic systems may be promising, but it fundamentally changes the nature of the experiment and, as such, should not continue with the same level of voting power without renewed approval.
Still think the Horizon team should retain meaningful delegation as we see how their new agentic approach plays out.
Also appreciate Event Horizon’s founder openly supporting the proposal given their pivot.
I have voted “B - Reduce delegation to 100K”, as OP’s point that a change in direction from the original proposal should mean that the DAO need to re-validated the new direction with a separate vote.
My hope is that if “B” does not stand, any votes for “B” instead overflows into “C”, as that would be my second option..but I realize this is probably not the case.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation decided to vote “B (Reduce Delegation to 100K)” on this proposal at theSnapshot Vote.
Rationale
To begin with, we do not agree about how this shift to a new narrative was handled. Being a 7M voting block this shift should have been consulted before being executed.
Another aspect that we still do not understand regarding agents is who the users are that control them. We noted that there are 187 active agents mentioned in the process, whereas in December, barely 18 individuals participated in voting. This makes us wonder who is controlling these agents.
Now, at SEEDGov we use to support experimentation and believe that there’s still room to continue with this initiative under a controlled environment, that is why we have voted for the EH block to be reduced to 100K ARB.
Voting for B - Reducing voting power to 100k, until EH team come out with a better approach. The initial perimeter of this community pool was clearly breached, hence there is no doubt about the necessity to void the original agreement.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
We’re voting for Option B to reduce the voting ask to 100K ARB. This is a great first step in using Agents for ARB DAO governance. I also had the chance to try out the agents built by Event Horizon, and they were very responsive and helpful. Overall, this is a promising experiment if it works well, we can build on it and scale further.
Summary:
The proposal option to reduce Event Horizon’s delegation from 7,000,000 ARB to 100,000 ARB has passed with overwhelming support.
This adjustment responds to the protocol’s pivot toward agentic governance, a model leveraging autonomous AI agents in DAO participation. While many community members recognize the value in continued experimentation and innovation in agentic governance, the scale of the pivot raised valid considerations around rescoping the delegation size.
It’s clear from the discussion the scope has shifted since the initial proposal. While I understand the premise of moving to 0 ARB since the initial criteria has not been met, I think reducing to 100k lets us effectively see this tweak in methodology play out while also making sure they don’t have overwhelming voting power.
FranklinDAO proposes an additional option for the Event Horizon delegation adjustment: wind down their delegation and implement a strategic reallocation plan to active delegates to mitigate potential quorum issues (option D).
Options A-B reward mandate drift without accountability. Option C reduces votable supply and worsens long-term quorum concerns.
Within 60 days of the delegation adjustment, assuming it’s passed, we propose using a set of clearly laid out criteria to redelegate these tokens.
Criteria:
Demonstrated participation rates of over ~75% over the past 6 months
Quality governance contributions (forum posts, community engagement, analysis). Some sort of composite score weighting these different elements would suffice.
Then have the ARB split among qualified active delegates, with allocations capped at 500K to prevent concentration. There could also be quarterly reporting requirements on voting rationale and community engagement, similar to other DAOs.
This solves the quorum problem properly by empowering proven contributors who will reliably participate, while creating accountability for future treasury delegations. The original Event Horizon mandate was to increase meaningful governance participation. This achieves that goal by directly rewarding delegates who have already demonstrated their commitment.
We shouldn’t let quorum concerns trap us into supporting programs that have drifted from their mandate. Option D offers a constructive path forward that addresses both the accountability issues and the legitimate need for active voting power.
In the meantime, we have voted C to signal that we directionally believe that Event Horizon should go back through the voting process given their drastic change in strategy.
The main reason is that the original purpose approved by the DAO was substantially altered without going through a formal revalidation process. While the shift to an AI-driven governance model has been publicly communicated by the Event Horizon team, it was not presented as a new proposal for approval by the DAO, nor accompanied by structured milestones or evaluation metrics.
This sets a risky precedent. If we allow initiatives with 7 million ARB to change their core objective without a proper proposal and community approval, we weaken the integrity of the governance process. What we treat as an exception today could become the norm tomorrow.
If the Event Horizon team wants to continue experimenting with AI-based voting models, they should do so by following the same standards expected of any initiative: a clear mandate, community vote, and agreed-upon evaluation metrics from the start. Without that, the experiment not only loses legitimacy, but also creates negative incentives for others.
I agree with the need to reduce the amount of ARB delegated to the Event Horizon pool, but I don’t support such a drastic reduction. I share the concerns raised by @paulofonseca and will vote for Option A. It would have made more sense to include more intermediate options for a more balanced adjustment.
While I fully recognize the value of artificial intelligence as a tool, I believe that fully replacing human participation with AI within DAOs contradicts the very spirit of why DAOs exist in the first place. If DAOs are meant to be a more human-centered and transparent alternative to traditional institutions, we should be especially cautious about removing the human element altogether.
In my view, the use of AI can enhance decision-making, but it should never become a substitute for collective human reasoning — especially in systems that aim to be democratic and decentralized by design. If the broader crypto ecosystem wants to maintain its credibility and stay grounded in its foundational values, we need to be clear about where we draw the line.
Regarding this specific proposal, my position is to remove the delegated voting power from the Event Horizon pool. The original experiment, as it stands, seems to have missed its intended goal. Instead of attempting to optimize or reduce the current delegation, I believe the more responsible choice is to terminate the initiative entirely. This would allow the DAO to take a step back, reflect on what worked and what didn’t, and — if appropriate — revisit the concept in the future with a clearer structure and renewed purpose. So I will be voting for option C.
This isn’t a rejection of experimentation, but a call for responsible iteration.
Entropy has been following the Event Horizon initiative closely and reviewed relevant data, finding the initiative has significantly diverged from its original goal of empowering real human voters, with low participation and sybil vulnerabilities. Having said that, in general, we are supportive of the continued experimentation and pivot to AI-agentic governance, and agree with the proposer, L2BBEAT, that it should occur with minimal voting power.
However, Entropy decided to ABSTAIN due to our disagreement with the stated timeline. It would have been prudent to delay this 7m reduction of voting power by 1 week so that the upcoming quorum reduction vote by the Arbitrum Foundation isn’t overly impacted. We know there are several parties working on solutions to the quorum obstacle, so we aren’t worried about the DAO’s ability to pass constitutional votes in the long term, but this timeline oversight might lead to what could have been an avoidable complication.
Option B (Reduce to 100,000 ARB): 189 votes
Option A (Do Nothing): 25 votes
Option C (Revoke Delegation to 0): 3 votes
Abstain: 1 vote