There is plenty of needless labor in Arbitrum governance. The process from ideation to proposal passing and assessment is full of inefficiencies and needless friction. Delegates are stretched thin both in mental bandwidth and time. New proposals face immense hurdles in grabbing the attention and feedback of these delegates and in crowdsourcing iterative improvements from the community. Communication takes weeks or even months to accumulate, not counting the processes of consensus-making. It’s often unclear what a marker of success would look like for a proposal, and it’s all too common for transparent assessments to be reported to the DAO, making it difficult to know if grant money has been used productively. Finally, if a proposal has attracted some traction, it’s often hard to get one’s bearings straight in that discussion without wading through 50+ replies of mixed quality with several external links and data points to consider.
With all these points of friction, current technological developments can act as a WD-40 for the entire governance process. Event Horizon aims to build upon existing infrastructure funded by the DAO to more effectively operationalize delegates. While there is still a long way to go before DAOs can be run fully autonomously, there are several places in which AI tooling can help improve the processes for human delegates today. The following proposal is a collaborative effort and contains several product requests sourced from various delegates and members of the AGI working group.
Event Horizon has already begun building for Arbitrum. Today, anyone can access the following features on our website.
Automated Voting: Users can create their own AI agent which gets its own micro-delegation from the Event Horizon voting pool, which then votes on this user’s behalf. This agent votes in line with the general preferences of the user. Users can ask the agent to update its preferences, to explain its reasoning, and of course, the users can override the agent at any time.
Forum suggestions, summaries, and sentiment analysis: Event Horizon personal agents have forum data live updated in a RAG database. This additional context goes beyond voting. Users can prompt their agent to provide summaries of the discussion and general sentiment from other delegates.
Multilingual support: Users can use their agents to better understand proposals and forum discussions in their own, non-English, native language. All agent communication can now be done in various other languages.
Proposal suggestions: Agents can offer helpful suggestions for how an actively discussed proposal can be improved. These suggestions take into account active forum discussions and delegate conversations.
Rational generation: Agents can provide rationales for why they voted a certain way shining light inside the black box that is traditional AIs. Debate can also be struck with these agents to help refine human delegates’ own rationales.
Forum Comment Writing: Agents can also craft informed comments on active proposal discussions, enhancing pre-voting governance deliberation.
Much of these features required a non-trivial investment into underlying infrastructure to make this possible. We want to build on the success of what we’ve shipped over the past few months to create more and better tools to help human delegates make decisions and track governance progress.
After much discussion with the AGI Working group the following features were requested:
Delegate Modeling for Proposal Crafting (requested by L2beat)
Event Horizon will fine-tune models to provide voting patterns and rationales in the style of various top delegates. This provides several benefits to the DAO:
One of the greatest limitations to agentic governance today is the lack of differentiation. Though prompt engineering alone can make subtle differences in agent reasoning, we’ve found that it requires true tuning to drive more meaningful differentiation from agent to agent. This differentiation is important for both personalization and emulation.
Swarm Coordination and Sensemaking
Just as we’re able to use these synthetic agents as a source of instantaneous feedback and wisdom, we can also use these same delegates and allow for synthetic debate. These simulated Socratic dialogues can help us find the source of fundamental disagreements, be it value-based or empirical, and can therefore suggest intelligent and valuable proposal suggestions to actively debated proposals. Various benefits include:
Select forum communication with SimScore
There was unanimous agreement between all delegates during the AGI working group calls that AI forum comments ought to be handled with care. No one wants to read AI slop or summaries interjected randomly into live debates. It ruins the flow of conversation and is often unoriginal. Thankfully, we can leverage the SimScore API developed by @ma3ts23to post only original, value-add comments to the forum. Our agents already have forum comments as context in their RAG databases. We can use this information, plus the outputs of synthetic delegates and/or swarm debate summaries to then filter for the most original comments via SimScore and post these comments to the forum.To ensure originality, our agents will filter forum comments using SimScore. These filtered comments will be derived from existing RAG databases (which contain forum discussions), augmented by insights from synthetic delegates and/or swarm debate summaries, and then posted to the forum. This will be done sparingly so as to not spam the forums. This allows us to provide the following benefits to the DAO:
Flexible Voting (ScopeLift) (suggested by Ben DiFrancesco):
The Event Horizon delegation currently votes in a winner take all model. With the help of ScopeLift tooling we can break this up into chunks to better represent the underlying preferences of the users who have their own AI delegate. This would be an upgrade to the governor contract, which would allow users to fractionally delegate to various delegates. Whales would finally be able to:
Full Bespoke DAO Events and News Feed:
A holistic personalized digest of the latest DAO proposals, discussions, and relevant events to users based on their unique preferences. This helps delegates in various ways:
KPI Suggestions for Proposals:
It’s far too common for there to be a lack of helpful markers of success in assessing new DAO initiatives.
Agents proactively recommend Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) tailored specifically to enhance clarity, accountability, and measurable outcomes within proposals. This allows delegates to:
Post-Proposal Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting:
Key to the success of any grants program, DAO-related or not, is to be able to evaluate whether a given grant applicant successfully executed on their task. Once KPIs are selected with the above tool paired with human delegate discernment, autonomous data collecting agents can automatically collect and post monthly or even weekly reports to the DAO. This enable various benefits to the delegates:
Global Chat:
Introduce a real-time global communication channel alongside personal agents, facilitating user collaboration, information sharing, and creative interaction methods. This allows users to prompt the agent swarm whenever and to see what previous users have found useful to ask the swarm. Benefits include:
AI Scoring and Rationales for Grants:
Agents autonomously evaluate proposals and grant applications, assigning objective scores accompanied by detailed rationales, enhancing transparency and trust in funding decisions. This tool is:
Agentic governance is not speculative; it’s an emerging standard that will define DAO participation. Arbitrum has a unique chance to lead this transformation. Event Horizon is committed to co-creating this initiative, guided by community input. This proposal will be brought to vote via Snapshot as a validation of the DAO’s desire to see these initiatives built.
There is plenty of needless labor in Arbitrum governance. The process from ideation to proposal passing and assessment is full of inefficiencies and needless friction. Delegates are stretched thin both in mental bandwidth and time. New proposals face immense hurdles in grabbing the attention and feedback of these delegates and in crowdsourcing iterative improvements from the community. Communication takes weeks or even months to accumulate, not counting the processes of consensus-making. It’s often unclear what a marker of success would look like for a proposal, and it’s all too common for transparent assessments to be reported to the DAO, making it difficult to know if grant money has been used productively. Finally, if a proposal has attracted some traction, it’s often hard to get one’s bearings straight in that discussion without wading through 50+ replies of mixed quality with several external links and data points to consider.
With all these points of friction, current technological developments can act as a WD-40 for the entire governance process. Event Horizon aims to build upon existing infrastructure funded by the DAO to more effectively operationalize delegates. While there is still a long way to go before DAOs can be run fully autonomously, there are several places in which AI tooling can help improve the processes for human delegates today. The following proposal is a collaborative effort and contains several product requests sourced from various delegates and members of the AGI working group.
Event Horizon has already begun building for Arbitrum. Today, anyone can access the following features on our website.
Automated Voting: Users can create their own AI agent which gets its own micro-delegation from the Event Horizon voting pool, which then votes on this user’s behalf. This agent votes in line with the general preferences of the user. Users can ask the agent to update its preferences, to explain its reasoning, and of course, the users can override the agent at any time.
Forum suggestions, summaries, and sentiment analysis: Event Horizon personal agents have forum data live updated in a RAG database. This additional context goes beyond voting. Users can prompt their agent to provide summaries of the discussion and general sentiment from other delegates.
Multilingual support: Users can use their agents to better understand proposals and forum discussions in their own, non-English, native language. All agent communication can now be done in various other languages.
Proposal suggestions: Agents can offer helpful suggestions for how an actively discussed proposal can be improved. These suggestions take into account active forum discussions and delegate conversations.
Rational generation: Agents can provide rationales for why they voted a certain way shining light inside the black box that is traditional AIs. Debate can also be struck with these agents to help refine human delegates’ own rationales.
Forum Comment Writing: Agents can also craft informed comments on active proposal discussions, enhancing pre-voting governance deliberation.
Much of these features required a non-trivial investment into underlying infrastructure to make this possible. We want to build on the success of what we’ve shipped over the past few months to create more and better tools to help human delegates make decisions and track governance progress.
After much discussion with the AGI Working group the following features were requested:
Delegate Modeling for Proposal Crafting (requested by L2beat)
Event Horizon will fine-tune models to provide voting patterns and rationales in the style of various top delegates. This provides several benefits to the DAO:
One of the greatest limitations to agentic governance today is the lack of differentiation. Though prompt engineering alone can make subtle differences in agent reasoning, we’ve found that it requires true tuning to drive more meaningful differentiation from agent to agent. This differentiation is important for both personalization and emulation.
Swarm Coordination and Sensemaking
Just as we’re able to use these synthetic agents as a source of instantaneous feedback and wisdom, we can also use these same delegates and allow for synthetic debate. These simulated Socratic dialogues can help us find the source of fundamental disagreements, be it value-based or empirical, and can therefore suggest intelligent and valuable proposal suggestions to actively debated proposals. Various benefits include:
Select forum communication with SimScore
There was unanimous agreement between all delegates during the AGI working group calls that AI forum comments ought to be handled with care. No one wants to read AI slop or summaries interjected randomly into live debates. It ruins the flow of conversation and is often unoriginal. Thankfully, we can leverage the SimScore API developed by @ma3ts23to post only original, value-add comments to the forum. Our agents already have forum comments as context in their RAG databases. We can use this information, plus the outputs of synthetic delegates and/or swarm debate summaries to then filter for the most original comments via SimScore and post these comments to the forum.To ensure originality, our agents will filter forum comments using SimScore. These filtered comments will be derived from existing RAG databases (which contain forum discussions), augmented by insights from synthetic delegates and/or swarm debate summaries, and then posted to the forum. This will be done sparingly so as to not spam the forums. This allows us to provide the following benefits to the DAO:
Flexible Voting (ScopeLift) (suggested by Ben DiFrancesco):
The Event Horizon delegation currently votes in a winner take all model. With the help of ScopeLift tooling we can break this up into chunks to better represent the underlying preferences of the users who have their own AI delegate. This would be an upgrade to the governor contract, which would allow users to fractionally delegate to various delegates. Whales would finally be able to:
Full Bespoke DAO Events and News Feed:
A holistic personalized digest of the latest DAO proposals, discussions, and relevant events to users based on their unique preferences. This helps delegates in various ways:
KPI Suggestions for Proposals:
It’s far too common for there to be a lack of helpful markers of success in assessing new DAO initiatives.
Agents proactively recommend Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) tailored specifically to enhance clarity, accountability, and measurable outcomes within proposals. This allows delegates to:
Post-Proposal Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting:
Key to the success of any grants program, DAO-related or not, is to be able to evaluate whether a given grant applicant successfully executed on their task. Once KPIs are selected with the above tool paired with human delegate discernment, autonomous data collecting agents can automatically collect and post monthly or even weekly reports to the DAO. This enable various benefits to the delegates:
Global Chat:
Introduce a real-time global communication channel alongside personal agents, facilitating user collaboration, information sharing, and creative interaction methods. This allows users to prompt the agent swarm whenever and to see what previous users have found useful to ask the swarm. Benefits include:
AI Scoring and Rationales for Grants:
Agents autonomously evaluate proposals and grant applications, assigning objective scores accompanied by detailed rationales, enhancing transparency and trust in funding decisions. This tool is:
Agentic governance is not speculative; it’s an emerging standard that will define DAO participation. Arbitrum has a unique chance to lead this transformation. Event Horizon is committed to co-creating this initiative, guided by community input. This proposal will be brought to vote via Snapshot as a validation of the DAO’s desire to see these initiatives built.
We're working on spinning up a WG right now. Will post more info once details are set.
We're working on spinning up a WG right now. Will post more info once details are set.
Some interesting points here. Going to weigh in having trained and deployed LLMs from scratch circa GPT-2 era.
One thing I would like to point out should Arbitrum pursue this further. I would hope to make sure that they do so in the spirit of creating a level playing field amongst vendors. This ultimately comes down to OPs point on 12. Data Collection and Model Improvement
Some interesting points here. Going to weigh in having trained and deployed LLMs from scratch circa GPT-2 era.
One thing I would like to point out should Arbitrum pursue this further. I would hope to make sure that they do so in the spirit of creating a level playing field amongst vendors. This ultimately comes down to OPs point on 12. Data Collection and Model Improvement
Getting this right is non-trivial and will ultimately be the difference between how the various agents/vendor teams perform.
Proposal data, voting data, forum data — while this is all in the public domain, scraping it will most likely be prohibitive to even the most sophisticated ML/AI data scientists.
I propose a key idea to support an open-agentic ecosystem
This immediately levels the playing field for anyone who would like to build their own personal agent. No paying for expensive indexers, cleaning data, knowledge of solidity etc.
Most importantly public data is not a moat!
This would allow nearly anyone with a basic computer science understand to "drop and unpack" insights though whatever means they wish.
As tooling matures, in theory anyone can build a personal agent that is aligned with their views. Most of all we are all working from verified, scrutinised data sets.
This also leads into a big concern as we start relying more on AI systems for information. Being able to source references for the information that is presented will be critical.
Thanks for the clarifications. My concern is more on the 'capture' of delegated ARB from the foundation. If a massive amount of delegated ARB goes to one 'provider', that makes it less likely for other experiments to receive a similar amount of delegated ARB, reducing competition and experimentation in the space.
I don't want to seem too negative here, so I'll make clear that I support the work your team does as i think it is beneficial experimentation in general. It's been great to see how it has evolved and the discussions it has catalysed!
Thanks for the clarifications. My concern is more on the 'capture' of delegated ARB from the foundation. If a massive amount of delegated ARB goes to one 'provider', that makes it less likely for other experiments to receive a similar amount of delegated ARB, reducing competition and experimentation in the space.
I don't want to seem too negative here, so I'll make clear that I support the work your team does as i think it is beneficial experimentation in general. It's been great to see how it has evolved and the discussions it has catalysed!
More than happy to contribute (as a potential future delegate or just someone interested) to this initiative and other future experiments.
Do all governance infrastructure improvements fall under the purview of OpCo? Even if it means building an entirely new tech stack? I may be misunderstanding the scope of OpCo but this seems either excessive or not the case. I'm open to being corrected though.
I think initially it would be measured similar to human delegates - participation, contribution, alignment of Arb's mission. It'd be very similar to how you measure the performance of the top ARB delegates.
Some interesting points here. Going to weigh in having trained and deployed LLMs from scratch circa GPT-2 era.
One thing I would like to point out should Arbitrum pursue this further. I would hope to make sure that they do so in the spirit of creating a level playing field amongst vendors. This ultimately comes down to OPs point on 12. Data Collection and Model Improvement
Some interesting points here. Going to weigh in having trained and deployed LLMs from scratch circa GPT-2 era.
One thing I would like to point out should Arbitrum pursue this further. I would hope to make sure that they do so in the spirit of creating a level playing field amongst vendors. This ultimately comes down to OPs point on 12. Data Collection and Model Improvement
Getting this right is non-trivial and will ultimately be the difference between how the various agents/vendor teams perform.
Proposal data, voting data, forum data — while this is all in the public domain, scraping it will most likely be prohibitive to even the most sophisticated ML/AI data scientists.
I propose a key idea to support an open-agentic ecosystem
This immediately levels the playing field for anyone who would like to build their own personal agent. No paying for expensive indexers, cleaning data, knowledge of solidity etc.
Most importantly public data is not a moat!
This would allow nearly anyone with a basic computer science understand to "drop and unpack" insights though whatever means they wish.
As tooling matures, in theory anyone can build a personal agent that is aligned with their views. Most of all we are all working from verified, scrutinised data sets.
This also leads into a big concern as we start relying more on AI systems for information. Being able to source references for the information that is presented will be critical.
Thanks for the clarifications. My concern is more on the 'capture' of delegated ARB from the foundation. If a massive amount of delegated ARB goes to one 'provider', that makes it less likely for other experiments to receive a similar amount of delegated ARB, reducing competition and experimentation in the space.
I don't want to seem too negative here, so I'll make clear that I support the work your team does as i think it is beneficial experimentation in general. It's been great to see how it has evolved and the discussions it has catalysed!
Thanks for the clarifications. My concern is more on the 'capture' of delegated ARB from the foundation. If a massive amount of delegated ARB goes to one 'provider', that makes it less likely for other experiments to receive a similar amount of delegated ARB, reducing competition and experimentation in the space.
I don't want to seem too negative here, so I'll make clear that I support the work your team does as i think it is beneficial experimentation in general. It's been great to see how it has evolved and the discussions it has catalysed!
More than happy to contribute (as a potential future delegate or just someone interested) to this initiative and other future experiments.
Do all governance infrastructure improvements fall under the purview of OpCo? Even if it means building an entirely new tech stack? I may be misunderstanding the scope of OpCo but this seems either excessive or not the case. I'm open to being corrected though.
I think initially it would be measured similar to human delegates - participation, contribution, alignment of Arb's mission. It'd be very similar to how you measure the performance of the top ARB delegates.
This is a good initiative and I agree with the premise of agentic governance. However it's important that Arbitrum governance does not get 'captured' by one platform, but maintains its permissionless nature in regards to AI agents and platforms.
I believe Optimism have taken a good approach with their recent mission request, creating early experiments with AI delegates, where multiple parties are contributing to the same goal: https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/ecosystem-contributions/issues/277#issue-2961676633 (We, x23.ai, were one of the selected teams).
This is a good initiative and I agree with the premise of agentic governance. However it's important that Arbitrum governance does not get 'captured' by one platform, but maintains its permissionless nature in regards to AI agents and platforms.
I believe Optimism have taken a good approach with their recent mission request, creating early experiments with AI delegates, where multiple parties are contributing to the same goal: https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/ecosystem-contributions/issues/277#issue-2961676633 (We, x23.ai, were one of the selected teams).
It would be good to see this initiative mirror certain parts of Optimism's mission request, namely allocating ARB voting power to multiple agentic governance providers, and evaluating performance over time in a competitive environment.
This is a good initiative and I agree with the premise of agentic governance. However it's important that Arbitrum governance does not get 'captured' by one platform, but maintains its permissionless nature in regards to AI agents and platforms.
I believe Optimism have taken a good approach with their recent mission request, creating early experiments with AI delegates, where multiple parties are contributing to the same goal: https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/ecosystem-contributions/issues/277#issue-2961676633 (We, x23.ai, were one of the selected teams).
This is a good initiative and I agree with the premise of agentic governance. However it's important that Arbitrum governance does not get 'captured' by one platform, but maintains its permissionless nature in regards to AI agents and platforms.
I believe Optimism have taken a good approach with their recent mission request, creating early experiments with AI delegates, where multiple parties are contributing to the same goal: https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/ecosystem-contributions/issues/277#issue-2961676633 (We, x23.ai, were one of the selected teams).
It would be good to see this initiative mirror certain parts of Optimism's mission request, namely allocating ARB voting power to multiple agentic governance providers, and evaluating performance over time in a competitive environment.
Not sure if you have looked at this proposal. An Integration to convert Discourse Forum Discussions into Clear Proposal Revisions with Community-Sourced Justifications - Technical Discussion - Arbitrum I wonder if this is something you would consider?
Not sure if you have looked at this proposal. An Integration to convert Discourse Forum Discussions into Clear Proposal Revisions with Community-Sourced Justifications - Technical Discussion - Arbitrum I wonder if this is something you would consider?
Hi cp0x,
Your reply is very interesting.
The bridge between decentralization and one person making a decision (vote).
Looking at DAO’s the collective makes the decision. Not the individual person. Together as a group the decision is made. Yes/No- onchain.
That is decentralization.
However not the proposal revisions. Proposer’s are charged with that work. This is where I feel there is a gap.
Hi cp0x,
Your reply is very interesting.
The bridge between decentralization and one person making a decision (vote).
Looking at DAO’s the collective makes the decision. Not the individual person. Together as a group the decision is made. Yes/No- onchain.
That is decentralization.
However not the proposal revisions. Proposer’s are charged with that work. This is where I feel there is a gap.
The DAO members exerted effort to comment, meet, discuss and debate proposals. Yet the proposer decides which ideas to add and which ideas to ignore.
This is not decentralized.
Unfortunately I think it’s clear that AI sucks in some areas and is superhuman in the right niche.
What we need is a mechanism of aggregation of all holders / delegates comments that is auditable and transparent, not blackbox. The aggregation becomes basis of proposal revisions.
This way holders / delegates can “vote” with their ideas as well as their yes/no decisions
Count me in. The future of governance isn’t manual, it’s agentic. The idea of co-creating a system where AI faithfully amplifies human intent, streamlines participation, and scales inclusion is exactly the kind of frontier thinking DAOs need. I’m excited to help shape the final AGI proposal and contribute to the long-term vision of intelligent, responsive governance in the Arbitrum ecosystem. Let’s build the blueprint for the next era together.
Hi cp0x,
Your reply is very interesting.
The bridge between decentralization and one person making a decision (vote).
Looking at DAO’s the collective makes the decision. Not the individual person. Together as a group the decision is made. Yes/No- onchain.
That is decentralization.
However not the proposal revisions. Proposer’s are charged with that work. This is where I feel there is a gap.
Hi cp0x,
Your reply is very interesting.
The bridge between decentralization and one person making a decision (vote).
Looking at DAO’s the collective makes the decision. Not the individual person. Together as a group the decision is made. Yes/No- onchain.
That is decentralization.
However not the proposal revisions. Proposer’s are charged with that work. This is where I feel there is a gap.
The DAO members exerted effort to comment, meet, discuss and debate proposals. Yet the proposer decides which ideas to add and which ideas to ignore.
This is not decentralized.
Unfortunately I think it’s clear that AI sucks in some areas and is superhuman in the right niche.
What we need is a mechanism of aggregation of all holders / delegates comments that is auditable and transparent, not blackbox. The aggregation becomes basis of proposal revisions.
This way holders / delegates can “vote” with their ideas as well as their yes/no decisions
Count me in. The future of governance isn’t manual, it’s agentic. The idea of co-creating a system where AI faithfully amplifies human intent, streamlines participation, and scales inclusion is exactly the kind of frontier thinking DAOs need. I’m excited to help shape the final AGI proposal and contribute to the long-term vision of intelligent, responsive governance in the Arbitrum ecosystem. Let’s build the blueprint for the next era together.
hey there @EventHorizonDAO ! How are we doing with this initiative? Any progress?
hey there @EventHorizonDAO ! How are we doing with this initiative? Any progress?
Not the right forum section for this (an AI agent might’ve flagged that :slightly_smiling_face:), but definitely a worthwhile discussion.
There’s a lot of interesting framing here around how agentic governance could evolve, particularly the idea of narrowing the gap between a user’s intent and their onchain expression through persistent agents.
That said, a few open questions come to mind:
Not the right forum section for this (an AI agent might’ve flagged that :slightly_smiling_face:), but definitely a worthwhile discussion.
There’s a lot of interesting framing here around how agentic governance could evolve, particularly the idea of narrowing the gap between a user’s intent and their onchain expression through persistent agents.
That said, a few open questions come to mind:
What are the risks? Delegating governance to agents without robust oversight can create blind spots—misaligned votes, prompt injection, or capture by whoever controls training data. Some kind of transparent auditability and override mechanism feels essential.
Do we really need an AAE for this? It’s unclear if formal alignment is necessary at this stage. A more agile, community-driven working group could explore early experiments without the weight of institutional structure.
Pace matters. Would suggest we take this slow. Start by consolidating fragmented governance data through LLMs summarizing proposals, surfacing forum themes, etc. before we leap into more complex features like autonomous voting or swarm debate.
Curious to see how others feel about setting guardrails vs. pushing fast on the innovation front. Either way, this is a conversation worth having.
My point is not about a grant program and this has nothing to do with RnDAO. Rather it's about Arbitrum avoiding single-vendor lock in for what is an important initiative. There are many others in the ecosystem who should be allowed to participate in developing Arbitrum governance with AI. Having a vendor own this creates conflicts of interest and is detrimental for Arbitrum
Arbitrum is growing fast: more voices, more ideas, and ideally, more decentralization. But how exactly will AGI help Arbitrum become even more decentralized?
When AI is involved, we will tend to rely on it too much. We start giving it commands, and little by little, we lose the human touch and lean too heavily on Swarm. Then no various voices any more :)
Arbitrum is growing fast: more voices, more ideas, and ideally, more decentralization. But how exactly will AGI help Arbitrum become even more decentralized?
When AI is involved, we will tend to rely on it too much. We start giving it commands, and little by little, we lose the human touch and lean too heavily on Swarm. Then no various voices any more :)
Also, IBM reports that 62% of supply chain leaders already see agentic AI as a critical accelerator for operational speed. However, this speed comes with complexity, and that requires stronger oversight, transparency, and risk management.
That why if the AI doesn’t learn from good data, it might create noise and confusion within the DAO So overall, I’m not fully convinced by this proposal yet. But I’d support using AGI as a tool to assist DAO governance such as filtering comments, votes, or spotting AI generated inputs.
P/S: The DIP program has anti AI rules. Does bringing AGI into Arbitrum go against that?
While this is intriguing, does it really belong in "Proposals"? There doesn't appear to be any component that requires voting by the DAO. I'm not seeing any funding requests, and it appears the system (as I envision it) can be built to completion and be launched live completely without DAO approval. That is not to say that this is of no interest to the DAO, don't get me wrong, just that there appears to be no part that requires us to say "Yes" nor any part that would be feasibly blocked by us saying"No".
Here's how I'm envisioning the overall system, is this accurate or am I misunderstanding? a) An end-user would in some manner delegate ARB to AGI as part of "the admission" b) The user's agent would then work within the AGI-agent-crowd to serve user's interest, swaying the overall AGI-crowd vote c) The AGI-crowd would then reach a consensus and apply all of the ARB delegated to the AGI to vote accordingly
Hey everyone,
We're spinning up a working group to go over this AI governance tooling push. We welcome any and all voices to contribute the direction we take together as a DAO. Champions and skeptics alike, all are encouraged to join.
Please like this comment to receive a DM to be invited to the working group telegram group chat. We will also be hosting community calls after aligning schedules.
Thanks to the @EventHorizonDAO team for taking charge of experimentation into AI governance. While we think there are certainly areas for AI involvement in governance workflows (translation is a great example), there are some worrisome long-tail issues here that worth considering. A few areas of concern:
It's unclear what the attack vectors for LLMs are, and giving them significant voting power could introduce an unwarranted risk.
Noise is already an issue in the forum, so it's unclear if adding more voices (especially multiple agents) would be of value directly in the forum. However, perhaps there is a way to integrate the feedback of LLMs and AI swarms in a way that still provides insights or alternative views delegates have overlooked.
Lastly, we believe that governance in its most resilient form is immutable and self-executing contracts that receive their robustness from aligning the incentives of independent actors in a decentralized manner. We should strive to leverage the characteristics of blockchains in governance by streamlining menial operations with onchain tooling that allows delegates and stakeholders to focus on fewer, and more strategic goals, rather than relying on outsourcing the decision-making process.
Meaningful governance occurs off the forum, and between stakeholders who eventually bring mature ideas to the forum. We think there's value in smaller stakeholders participating, but if they passively defer their power to agents to do so, the value-add remains unclear.
Just wanted to follow up—really think a feature like an “Arb-Brain” chat tool could be a game-changer for tracking comments, sentiments, proposals, and Fdn/OpCo/grantee reports in one place. It’d help us keep tabs on funding balances and hold initiatives accountable without the governance grind to dig in obscure spreadsheets. I’d encourage Entropy to propose this as part of AGI’s next steps. Still think full AI autonomy is a ways off, but tools like this are perfect for now to encourage more participation in the human side of the governance process.
Hey Event Horizon team, really appreciate the forward-thinking vision behind the AGI—super exciting stuff! I’m all for pushing the boundaries of what DAOs can do with AI, but I gotta say, it feels a bit early to go full-on autonomous AI governance in Arbitrum. The ecosystem is still mostly driven by human decisions—voters, delegates, devs, you name it—and expecting AI agents to run the show when the economy isn’t AI-native yet seems like a stretch. Without AI agents dominating the economic side (like trading, DeFi, or treasury management), governance agents might struggle to sync up properly and could end up misaligned with the messy, human-driven reality.
That said, I’m totally sold on using AI as a tool right now to tackle voter and delegate fatigue. The UX issues you highlighted—endless forum threads, Telegram chats, and proposal slog—are so real. AI agents helping with automated voting, summarizing discussions, or drafting comments could be a game-changer for retail users and burned-out delegates. It’s like giving people a governance superpower without the time suck.
Again, this sounds like a point for a separate thread. Anyone is welcome to participate (RnDAO included), just as Event Horizon is here. That hasn't changed. We are a build team working to create the best possible product. That doesn't stop anyone else. We won't stop collecting community input and building the best possible product, just because other teams aren't right now.
Continuing to repeat that there should be more generalized initiatives for these hypothetical products in a conversation dedicated to building this initiative is simply irrelevant and not productive to the advancement of what is available to the Arbitrum community today, Event Horizon.
Not the right forum section for this (an AI agent might’ve flagged that :slightly_smiling_face:), but definitely a worthwhile discussion.
There’s a lot of interesting framing here around how agentic governance could evolve, particularly the idea of narrowing the gap between a user’s intent and their onchain expression through persistent agents.
That said, a few open questions come to mind:
Not the right forum section for this (an AI agent might’ve flagged that :slightly_smiling_face:), but definitely a worthwhile discussion.
There’s a lot of interesting framing here around how agentic governance could evolve, particularly the idea of narrowing the gap between a user’s intent and their onchain expression through persistent agents.
That said, a few open questions come to mind:
What are the risks? Delegating governance to agents without robust oversight can create blind spots—misaligned votes, prompt injection, or capture by whoever controls training data. Some kind of transparent auditability and override mechanism feels essential.
Do we really need an AAE for this? It’s unclear if formal alignment is necessary at this stage. A more agile, community-driven working group could explore early experiments without the weight of institutional structure.
Pace matters. Would suggest we take this slow. Start by consolidating fragmented governance data through LLMs summarizing proposals, surfacing forum themes, etc. before we leap into more complex features like autonomous voting or swarm debate.
Curious to see how others feel about setting guardrails vs. pushing fast on the innovation front. Either way, this is a conversation worth having.
My point is not about a grant program and this has nothing to do with RnDAO. Rather it's about Arbitrum avoiding single-vendor lock in for what is an important initiative. There are many others in the ecosystem who should be allowed to participate in developing Arbitrum governance with AI. Having a vendor own this creates conflicts of interest and is detrimental for Arbitrum
Arbitrum is growing fast: more voices, more ideas, and ideally, more decentralization. But how exactly will AGI help Arbitrum become even more decentralized?
When AI is involved, we will tend to rely on it too much. We start giving it commands, and little by little, we lose the human touch and lean too heavily on Swarm. Then no various voices any more :)
Arbitrum is growing fast: more voices, more ideas, and ideally, more decentralization. But how exactly will AGI help Arbitrum become even more decentralized?
When AI is involved, we will tend to rely on it too much. We start giving it commands, and little by little, we lose the human touch and lean too heavily on Swarm. Then no various voices any more :)
Also, IBM reports that 62% of supply chain leaders already see agentic AI as a critical accelerator for operational speed. However, this speed comes with complexity, and that requires stronger oversight, transparency, and risk management.
That why if the AI doesn’t learn from good data, it might create noise and confusion within the DAO So overall, I’m not fully convinced by this proposal yet. But I’d support using AGI as a tool to assist DAO governance such as filtering comments, votes, or spotting AI generated inputs.
P/S: The DIP program has anti AI rules. Does bringing AGI into Arbitrum go against that?
While this is intriguing, does it really belong in "Proposals"? There doesn't appear to be any component that requires voting by the DAO. I'm not seeing any funding requests, and it appears the system (as I envision it) can be built to completion and be launched live completely without DAO approval. That is not to say that this is of no interest to the DAO, don't get me wrong, just that there appears to be no part that requires us to say "Yes" nor any part that would be feasibly blocked by us saying"No".
Here's how I'm envisioning the overall system, is this accurate or am I misunderstanding? a) An end-user would in some manner delegate ARB to AGI as part of "the admission" b) The user's agent would then work within the AGI-agent-crowd to serve user's interest, swaying the overall AGI-crowd vote c) The AGI-crowd would then reach a consensus and apply all of the ARB delegated to the AGI to vote accordingly
Hey everyone,
We're spinning up a working group to go over this AI governance tooling push. We welcome any and all voices to contribute the direction we take together as a DAO. Champions and skeptics alike, all are encouraged to join.
Please like this comment to receive a DM to be invited to the working group telegram group chat. We will also be hosting community calls after aligning schedules.
Thanks to the @EventHorizonDAO team for taking charge of experimentation into AI governance. While we think there are certainly areas for AI involvement in governance workflows (translation is a great example), there are some worrisome long-tail issues here that worth considering. A few areas of concern:
It's unclear what the attack vectors for LLMs are, and giving them significant voting power could introduce an unwarranted risk.
Noise is already an issue in the forum, so it's unclear if adding more voices (especially multiple agents) would be of value directly in the forum. However, perhaps there is a way to integrate the feedback of LLMs and AI swarms in a way that still provides insights or alternative views delegates have overlooked.
Lastly, we believe that governance in its most resilient form is immutable and self-executing contracts that receive their robustness from aligning the incentives of independent actors in a decentralized manner. We should strive to leverage the characteristics of blockchains in governance by streamlining menial operations with onchain tooling that allows delegates and stakeholders to focus on fewer, and more strategic goals, rather than relying on outsourcing the decision-making process.
Meaningful governance occurs off the forum, and between stakeholders who eventually bring mature ideas to the forum. We think there's value in smaller stakeholders participating, but if they passively defer their power to agents to do so, the value-add remains unclear.
Just wanted to follow up—really think a feature like an “Arb-Brain” chat tool could be a game-changer for tracking comments, sentiments, proposals, and Fdn/OpCo/grantee reports in one place. It’d help us keep tabs on funding balances and hold initiatives accountable without the governance grind to dig in obscure spreadsheets. I’d encourage Entropy to propose this as part of AGI’s next steps. Still think full AI autonomy is a ways off, but tools like this are perfect for now to encourage more participation in the human side of the governance process.
Hey Event Horizon team, really appreciate the forward-thinking vision behind the AGI—super exciting stuff! I’m all for pushing the boundaries of what DAOs can do with AI, but I gotta say, it feels a bit early to go full-on autonomous AI governance in Arbitrum. The ecosystem is still mostly driven by human decisions—voters, delegates, devs, you name it—and expecting AI agents to run the show when the economy isn’t AI-native yet seems like a stretch. Without AI agents dominating the economic side (like trading, DeFi, or treasury management), governance agents might struggle to sync up properly and could end up misaligned with the messy, human-driven reality.
That said, I’m totally sold on using AI as a tool right now to tackle voter and delegate fatigue. The UX issues you highlighted—endless forum threads, Telegram chats, and proposal slog—are so real. AI agents helping with automated voting, summarizing discussions, or drafting comments could be a game-changer for retail users and burned-out delegates. It’s like giving people a governance superpower without the time suck.
Again, this sounds like a point for a separate thread. Anyone is welcome to participate (RnDAO included), just as Event Horizon is here. That hasn't changed. We are a build team working to create the best possible product. That doesn't stop anyone else. We won't stop collecting community input and building the best possible product, just because other teams aren't right now.
Continuing to repeat that there should be more generalized initiatives for these hypothetical products in a conversation dedicated to building this initiative is simply irrelevant and not productive to the advancement of what is available to the Arbitrum community today, Event Horizon.
While this is intriguing, does it really belong in "Proposals"? There doesn't appear to be any component that requires voting by the DAO. I'm not seeing any funding requests, and it appears the system (as I envision it) can be built to completion and be launched live completely without DAO approval. That is not to say that this is of no interest to the DAO, don't get me wrong, just that there appears to be no part that requires us to say "Yes" nor any part that would be feasibly blocked by us saying"No".
Here's how I'm envisioning the overall system, is this accurate or am I misunderstanding? a) An end-user would in some manner delegate ARB to AGI as part of "the admission" b) The user's agent would then work within the AGI-agent-crowd to serve user's interest, swaying the overall AGI-crowd vote c) The AGI-crowd would then reach a consensus and apply all of the ARB delegated to the AGI to vote accordingly
Hey everyone,
We're spinning up a working group to go over this AI governance tooling push. We welcome any and all voices to contribute the direction we take together as a DAO. Champions and skeptics alike, all are encouraged to join.
Please like this comment to receive a DM to be invited to the working group telegram group chat. We will also be hosting community calls after aligning schedules.
The working group thread is live here.
Thanks to the @EventHorizonDAO team for taking charge of experimentation into AI governance. While we think there are certainly areas for AI involvement in governance workflows (translation is a great example), there are some worrisome long-tail issues here that worth considering. A few areas of concern:
It's unclear what the attack vectors for LLMs are, and giving them significant voting power could introduce an unwarranted risk.
Noise is already an issue in the forum, so it's unclear if adding more voices (especially multiple agents) would be of value directly in the forum. However, perhaps there is a way to integrate the feedback of LLMs and AI swarms in a way that still provides insights or alternative views delegates have overlooked.
Lastly, we believe that governance in its most resilient form is immutable and self-executing contracts that receive their robustness from aligning the incentives of independent actors in a decentralized manner. We should strive to leverage the characteristics of blockchains in governance by streamlining menial operations with onchain tooling that allows delegates and stakeholders to focus on fewer, and more strategic goals, rather than relying on outsourcing the decision-making process.
Meaningful governance occurs off the forum, and between stakeholders who eventually bring mature ideas to the forum. We think there's value in smaller stakeholders participating, but if they passively defer their power to agents to do so, the value-add remains unclear.
This is likely more appropriately positioned as a grant request to the AF or Questbook to explore agentic governance rather than an AAE. That said, we're open to experimentation on how Event Horizon approaches the introduction of agentic governance.
Hey Event Horizon team, really appreciate the forward-thinking vision behind the AGI—super exciting stuff! I’m all for pushing the boundaries of what DAOs can do with AI, but I gotta say, it feels a bit early to go full-on autonomous AI governance in Arbitrum. The ecosystem is still mostly driven by human decisions—voters, delegates, devs, you name it—and expecting AI agents to run the show when the economy isn’t AI-native yet seems like a stretch. Without AI agents dominating the economic side (like trading, DeFi, or treasury management), governance agents might struggle to sync up properly and could end up misaligned with the messy, human-driven reality.
That said, I’m totally sold on using AI as a tool right now to tackle voter and delegate fatigue. The UX issues you highlighted—endless forum threads, Telegram chats, and proposal slog—are so real. AI agents helping with automated voting, summarizing discussions, or drafting comments could be a game-changer for retail users and burned-out delegates. It’s like giving people a governance superpower without the time suck.
I see a few parts of this initiative—like setting up the working group, becoming an AAE, or rolling out new voting mechanisms—that’ll need governance votes to move forward. I’d love for Entropy to step up and formally publish separate proposals for each of these, so we can get clear community feedback and keep things transparent. Keep building those tools, and maybe focus on getting more AI-driven economic activity in Arbitrum first to set the stage for autonomous governance later. Loving the direction, just think we need that hybrid approach for now!
This seems like the kind of blocking that we don’t want. OpCo isn’t even set up yet, never mind its mandate clearly established with regards to proposals like this.
This seems like the kind of blocking that we don’t want. OpCo isn’t even set up yet, never mind its mandate clearly established with regards to proposals like this.
In the interest of moving forward with the initiative, the DAO can consider creating a Working Group to manage the initial phases. The WG can then be either moved under OpCo or evolved into an independent AAE, depending on the initial outcomes. Immediately creating a new AAE for the initiative is counterproductive in my opinion. Alternatively, the initiative could be overseen by another of the existing AAEs and then moved under OpCo once it is ready.
We've just updated the proposal (check OP above) to reflect all features requested by various delegates in the AGI working group. All feedback is welcome.
Thanks for the link to the other post. I think I wrote an opinion on exactly what Event Horizon says, which goes beyond your main proposal. I'm saying that an agent can consolidate some opinions and present them in a convenient form, but deciding which of these proposals is better based on how people react to them seems wrong to me. We need to let people make decisions, without cutting off any options that agents find unpopular - the majority can also be wrong
I agree that as an assistant AI is very useful and I will support the decision to use it for the benefit of the community to sort out all the branches of voting and discussions. But as soon as AI makes any decisions, I will be against it
One small comment. The Agentic Governance Initiative proposes the creation of a new AAE, but this falls squarely under the domain of governance, which is already a focus of OpCo.
As explained in my comment for the Strategic Objectives proposal, I think we should avoid the temptation to create new AAEs for each initiative, and instead aim to align new efforts within the scope of existing AAEs wherever possible. In this case, expanding the mandate of OpCo to include oversight of the Agentic Governance Initiative seems preferable to creating an entirely new AAE.
Looking back at the work Event Horizon has done, they pivoted significantly after being awarded 7 million ARB from the treasury. One example of this was during the DDA election. Their actions affected us even after we had reached out to the community. That said, they made the right decision by choosing not to participate in future election votes. The Agentic voting preview and forum parsing already feel like solid UX wins, especially for busy delegates or newer participants. We are also working with Plutus on a similar solution for GMX governance. As agents evolve and adapt, will there be a way to audit or rate agent behavior? Some kind of trust or quality scoring. Can we get more data and dashboards to verify the data?
Danielo and Daveytea brought up a valid point about turning this into an RFP or opening it up to multiple providers. The downside is that going the RFP route could lead to higher costs and more complexity, rather than making use of an already capable team. The New teams likely won’t build this unless their developer costs are covered. A more practical approach might be to start with a small delegation to Event Horizon. If it proves successful, we can then scale it with more teams.
Hey Davey, we appreciate your feedback as a fellow builder in the AI space. We want to clarify that it is quite common for various products to lead sectors within the ecosystem (Tally for Voting/Staking, Karma for metrics, Questbook for grants). That said, "capture" certainly is not in the cards any more than the above teams have "captured" their respective verticals, and we welcome broader investment into AI expansion. We would work with you on a separate plan for AI grant funding, but we do not want to blur the intention of this current one.
For context of this proposal, the Event Horizon team has been building agentic governance tooling for the Arbitrum ecosystem for several months: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/event-horizon-updates/27339/6.
Hey Davey, we appreciate your feedback as a fellow builder in the AI space. We want to clarify that it is quite common for various products to lead sectors within the ecosystem (Tally for Voting/Staking, Karma for metrics, Questbook for grants). That said, "capture" certainly is not in the cards any more than the above teams have "captured" their respective verticals, and we welcome broader investment into AI expansion. We would work with you on a separate plan for AI grant funding, but we do not want to blur the intention of this current one.
For context of this proposal, the Event Horizon team has been building agentic governance tooling for the Arbitrum ecosystem for several months: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/event-horizon-updates/27339/6.
This specific proposal is a call to better align how Event Horizon specifically can continue building value-added tooling. We are focused on build path, and are not endeavoring to champion a broader grants competition, as that isn't our domain as a team and we are squarely focused on build.
Though, again, should the OP program yield material benefit for the OP ecosystem in the months to come, we would be open to being a collaborator with you in a similar, separate approach. And we'd gladly connect if you're available in the coming weeks: https://calendly.com/jordan-hvax/1-hour-meeting
and evaluating performance over time in a competitive environment.
hey @daveytea how would you think this can be done, in practice? what is considered a good performance of an agentic governor?
Thank you Event Horizon for introducing this initiative.
Regarding Agentic Governance, we are really supportive of initiating discussions to create guidelines and boundaries on how would the Arbitrum DAO like to integrate agentic governance to serve a useful purpose in a collaborative way. We would be happy to join this discussion.
Thank you Event Horizon for introducing this initiative.
Regarding Agentic Governance, we are really supportive of initiating discussions to create guidelines and boundaries on how would the Arbitrum DAO like to integrate agentic governance to serve a useful purpose in a collaborative way. We would be happy to join this discussion.
Regarding EH becoming an AAE to act in behalf of the DAO in the development of agentic governance initiatives, we believe further clarity is still needed to solidify the case for AAE designation:
Mission-Critical Alignment. We encourage Event Horizon to articulate more explicitly how Arbitrum’s success is mission-critical to your organization. For example, aligning your growth strategy, sustainability model, or core KPIs with DAO adoption metrics would reinforce this commitment. Defined Scope of Work. The AGI post outlines an ambitious roadmap. As part of a potential AAE onboarding, we suggest scoping a focused mandate (e.g., “agentic governance infrastructure and retail participation”) to avoid overlaps and enable OpCo and the OAT to assess progress effectively. Operational Integration. If Event Horizon pursues AAE status, we recommend working closely with OpCo and other AAEs to define how your infrastructure can plug into Arbitrum’s governance lifecycle (e.g., interface with proposal development, accountability pipelines, or ecosystem education).
This seems like the kind of blocking that we don't want. OpCo isn't even set up yet, never mind its mandate clearly established with regards to proposals like this.
Hey @danielo we understand your propensity toward generalized grant programs and venture studios as your business model.
However, again, this is a call for how Event Horizon specifically can continue building the products it has already built and has in motion for Arbitrum — there is no need for EH to construct a broad grants program for this. We are not a grants studio and in fact it would be a large time and effort suck when compared to actually building product.
I see massive potential here for addressing Arbitrum's core governance bottlenecks.
Our current governance is painfully bureaucratic and slow. Agents can support meaningful participation from key contributors while dramatically reducing governance overhead costs.
I see massive potential here for addressing Arbitrum's core governance bottlenecks.
Our current governance is painfully bureaucratic and slow. Agents can support meaningful participation from key contributors while dramatically reducing governance overhead costs.
The infrastructure around AI governance could make our entire SOS process significantly smoother. There's substantial value waiting to be captured through better coordination and decision-making tools.
I see two distinct paths here and both are very interesting to me:
AI Voting Agents: I agree with @daveytea that we should deploy multiple agents with lower voting power rather than single high-power agents. This approach allows us to better understand decision variance, prevents single points of failure, and creates a more robust governance signal by observing how different AI approaches converge or diverge on complex issues. Those Agents shouldnt be paid as humans from the delegate incentive programs, but there should be a similar process to reward the most outstanding ones.
AI Decision Support: This infrastructure should be developed as a service provider model to make participation radically easier for key stakeholders. The goal is delivering what busy contributors need - visually clear, digestible information that allows them to engage meaningfully in minimal time.
Our governance has such high barriers to entry that crucial stakeholders simply can't participate. This is exactly why SOS is paused. We need infrastructure that lets busy, high-value contributors spend 10 minutes and deliver massive governance value rather than requiring hours of research just to understand basic proposals.
Can we please avoid the AGI acronym? AGI is already a widely used acronym in the context of AI, and Arbitrum choosing that for a workgroup/initative is really going to confuse people.
Also agreeing with @daveytea that avoiding capture by a single provider is important here. What makes sense to me with this initiative is designing an RFP with multiple awarded submissions.
While this is intriguing, does it really belong in "Proposals"? There doesn't appear to be any component that requires voting by the DAO. I'm not seeing any funding requests, and it appears the system (as I envision it) can be built to completion and be launched live completely without DAO approval. That is not to say that this is of no interest to the DAO, don't get me wrong, just that there appears to be no part that requires us to say "Yes" nor any part that would be feasibly blocked by us saying"No".
Here's how I'm envisioning the overall system, is this accurate or am I misunderstanding? a) An end-user would in some manner delegate ARB to AGI as part of "the admission" b) The user's agent would then work within the AGI-agent-crowd to serve user's interest, swaying the overall AGI-crowd vote c) The AGI-crowd would then reach a consensus and apply all of the ARB delegated to the AGI to vote accordingly
Hey everyone,
We're spinning up a working group to go over this AI governance tooling push. We welcome any and all voices to contribute the direction we take together as a DAO. Champions and skeptics alike, all are encouraged to join.
Please like this comment to receive a DM to be invited to the working group telegram group chat. We will also be hosting community calls after aligning schedules.
The working group thread is live here.
Thanks to the @EventHorizonDAO team for taking charge of experimentation into AI governance. While we think there are certainly areas for AI involvement in governance workflows (translation is a great example), there are some worrisome long-tail issues here that worth considering. A few areas of concern:
It's unclear what the attack vectors for LLMs are, and giving them significant voting power could introduce an unwarranted risk.
Noise is already an issue in the forum, so it's unclear if adding more voices (especially multiple agents) would be of value directly in the forum. However, perhaps there is a way to integrate the feedback of LLMs and AI swarms in a way that still provides insights or alternative views delegates have overlooked.
Lastly, we believe that governance in its most resilient form is immutable and self-executing contracts that receive their robustness from aligning the incentives of independent actors in a decentralized manner. We should strive to leverage the characteristics of blockchains in governance by streamlining menial operations with onchain tooling that allows delegates and stakeholders to focus on fewer, and more strategic goals, rather than relying on outsourcing the decision-making process.
Meaningful governance occurs off the forum, and between stakeholders who eventually bring mature ideas to the forum. We think there's value in smaller stakeholders participating, but if they passively defer their power to agents to do so, the value-add remains unclear.
This is likely more appropriately positioned as a grant request to the AF or Questbook to explore agentic governance rather than an AAE. That said, we're open to experimentation on how Event Horizon approaches the introduction of agentic governance.
Hey Event Horizon team, really appreciate the forward-thinking vision behind the AGI—super exciting stuff! I’m all for pushing the boundaries of what DAOs can do with AI, but I gotta say, it feels a bit early to go full-on autonomous AI governance in Arbitrum. The ecosystem is still mostly driven by human decisions—voters, delegates, devs, you name it—and expecting AI agents to run the show when the economy isn’t AI-native yet seems like a stretch. Without AI agents dominating the economic side (like trading, DeFi, or treasury management), governance agents might struggle to sync up properly and could end up misaligned with the messy, human-driven reality.
That said, I’m totally sold on using AI as a tool right now to tackle voter and delegate fatigue. The UX issues you highlighted—endless forum threads, Telegram chats, and proposal slog—are so real. AI agents helping with automated voting, summarizing discussions, or drafting comments could be a game-changer for retail users and burned-out delegates. It’s like giving people a governance superpower without the time suck.
I see a few parts of this initiative—like setting up the working group, becoming an AAE, or rolling out new voting mechanisms—that’ll need governance votes to move forward. I’d love for Entropy to step up and formally publish separate proposals for each of these, so we can get clear community feedback and keep things transparent. Keep building those tools, and maybe focus on getting more AI-driven economic activity in Arbitrum first to set the stage for autonomous governance later. Loving the direction, just think we need that hybrid approach for now!
This seems like the kind of blocking that we don’t want. OpCo isn’t even set up yet, never mind its mandate clearly established with regards to proposals like this.
This seems like the kind of blocking that we don’t want. OpCo isn’t even set up yet, never mind its mandate clearly established with regards to proposals like this.
In the interest of moving forward with the initiative, the DAO can consider creating a Working Group to manage the initial phases. The WG can then be either moved under OpCo or evolved into an independent AAE, depending on the initial outcomes. Immediately creating a new AAE for the initiative is counterproductive in my opinion. Alternatively, the initiative could be overseen by another of the existing AAEs and then moved under OpCo once it is ready.
We've just updated the proposal (check OP above) to reflect all features requested by various delegates in the AGI working group. All feedback is welcome.
Thanks for the link to the other post. I think I wrote an opinion on exactly what Event Horizon says, which goes beyond your main proposal. I'm saying that an agent can consolidate some opinions and present them in a convenient form, but deciding which of these proposals is better based on how people react to them seems wrong to me. We need to let people make decisions, without cutting off any options that agents find unpopular - the majority can also be wrong
I agree that as an assistant AI is very useful and I will support the decision to use it for the benefit of the community to sort out all the branches of voting and discussions. But as soon as AI makes any decisions, I will be against it
One small comment. The Agentic Governance Initiative proposes the creation of a new AAE, but this falls squarely under the domain of governance, which is already a focus of OpCo.
As explained in my comment for the Strategic Objectives proposal, I think we should avoid the temptation to create new AAEs for each initiative, and instead aim to align new efforts within the scope of existing AAEs wherever possible. In this case, expanding the mandate of OpCo to include oversight of the Agentic Governance Initiative seems preferable to creating an entirely new AAE.
Looking back at the work Event Horizon has done, they pivoted significantly after being awarded 7 million ARB from the treasury. One example of this was during the DDA election. Their actions affected us even after we had reached out to the community. That said, they made the right decision by choosing not to participate in future election votes. The Agentic voting preview and forum parsing already feel like solid UX wins, especially for busy delegates or newer participants. We are also working with Plutus on a similar solution for GMX governance. As agents evolve and adapt, will there be a way to audit or rate agent behavior? Some kind of trust or quality scoring. Can we get more data and dashboards to verify the data?
Danielo and Daveytea brought up a valid point about turning this into an RFP or opening it up to multiple providers. The downside is that going the RFP route could lead to higher costs and more complexity, rather than making use of an already capable team. The New teams likely won’t build this unless their developer costs are covered. A more practical approach might be to start with a small delegation to Event Horizon. If it proves successful, we can then scale it with more teams.
Hey Davey, we appreciate your feedback as a fellow builder in the AI space. We want to clarify that it is quite common for various products to lead sectors within the ecosystem (Tally for Voting/Staking, Karma for metrics, Questbook for grants). That said, "capture" certainly is not in the cards any more than the above teams have "captured" their respective verticals, and we welcome broader investment into AI expansion. We would work with you on a separate plan for AI grant funding, but we do not want to blur the intention of this current one.
For context of this proposal, the Event Horizon team has been building agentic governance tooling for the Arbitrum ecosystem for several months: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/event-horizon-updates/27339/6.
Hey Davey, we appreciate your feedback as a fellow builder in the AI space. We want to clarify that it is quite common for various products to lead sectors within the ecosystem (Tally for Voting/Staking, Karma for metrics, Questbook for grants). That said, "capture" certainly is not in the cards any more than the above teams have "captured" their respective verticals, and we welcome broader investment into AI expansion. We would work with you on a separate plan for AI grant funding, but we do not want to blur the intention of this current one.
For context of this proposal, the Event Horizon team has been building agentic governance tooling for the Arbitrum ecosystem for several months: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/event-horizon-updates/27339/6.
This specific proposal is a call to better align how Event Horizon specifically can continue building value-added tooling. We are focused on build path, and are not endeavoring to champion a broader grants competition, as that isn't our domain as a team and we are squarely focused on build.
Though, again, should the OP program yield material benefit for the OP ecosystem in the months to come, we would be open to being a collaborator with you in a similar, separate approach. And we'd gladly connect if you're available in the coming weeks: https://calendly.com/jordan-hvax/1-hour-meeting
and evaluating performance over time in a competitive environment.
hey @daveytea how would you think this can be done, in practice? what is considered a good performance of an agentic governor?
Thank you Event Horizon for introducing this initiative.
Regarding Agentic Governance, we are really supportive of initiating discussions to create guidelines and boundaries on how would the Arbitrum DAO like to integrate agentic governance to serve a useful purpose in a collaborative way. We would be happy to join this discussion.
Thank you Event Horizon for introducing this initiative.
Regarding Agentic Governance, we are really supportive of initiating discussions to create guidelines and boundaries on how would the Arbitrum DAO like to integrate agentic governance to serve a useful purpose in a collaborative way. We would be happy to join this discussion.
Regarding EH becoming an AAE to act in behalf of the DAO in the development of agentic governance initiatives, we believe further clarity is still needed to solidify the case for AAE designation:
Mission-Critical Alignment. We encourage Event Horizon to articulate more explicitly how Arbitrum’s success is mission-critical to your organization. For example, aligning your growth strategy, sustainability model, or core KPIs with DAO adoption metrics would reinforce this commitment. Defined Scope of Work. The AGI post outlines an ambitious roadmap. As part of a potential AAE onboarding, we suggest scoping a focused mandate (e.g., “agentic governance infrastructure and retail participation”) to avoid overlaps and enable OpCo and the OAT to assess progress effectively. Operational Integration. If Event Horizon pursues AAE status, we recommend working closely with OpCo and other AAEs to define how your infrastructure can plug into Arbitrum’s governance lifecycle (e.g., interface with proposal development, accountability pipelines, or ecosystem education).
This seems like the kind of blocking that we don't want. OpCo isn't even set up yet, never mind its mandate clearly established with regards to proposals like this.
Hey @danielo we understand your propensity toward generalized grant programs and venture studios as your business model.
However, again, this is a call for how Event Horizon specifically can continue building the products it has already built and has in motion for Arbitrum — there is no need for EH to construct a broad grants program for this. We are not a grants studio and in fact it would be a large time and effort suck when compared to actually building product.
I see massive potential here for addressing Arbitrum's core governance bottlenecks.
Our current governance is painfully bureaucratic and slow. Agents can support meaningful participation from key contributors while dramatically reducing governance overhead costs.
I see massive potential here for addressing Arbitrum's core governance bottlenecks.
Our current governance is painfully bureaucratic and slow. Agents can support meaningful participation from key contributors while dramatically reducing governance overhead costs.
The infrastructure around AI governance could make our entire SOS process significantly smoother. There's substantial value waiting to be captured through better coordination and decision-making tools.
I see two distinct paths here and both are very interesting to me:
AI Voting Agents: I agree with @daveytea that we should deploy multiple agents with lower voting power rather than single high-power agents. This approach allows us to better understand decision variance, prevents single points of failure, and creates a more robust governance signal by observing how different AI approaches converge or diverge on complex issues. Those Agents shouldnt be paid as humans from the delegate incentive programs, but there should be a similar process to reward the most outstanding ones.
AI Decision Support: This infrastructure should be developed as a service provider model to make participation radically easier for key stakeholders. The goal is delivering what busy contributors need - visually clear, digestible information that allows them to engage meaningfully in minimal time.
Our governance has such high barriers to entry that crucial stakeholders simply can't participate. This is exactly why SOS is paused. We need infrastructure that lets busy, high-value contributors spend 10 minutes and deliver massive governance value rather than requiring hours of research just to understand basic proposals.
Can we please avoid the AGI acronym? AGI is already a widely used acronym in the context of AI, and Arbitrum choosing that for a workgroup/initative is really going to confuse people.
Also agreeing with @daveytea that avoiding capture by a single provider is important here. What makes sense to me with this initiative is designing an RFP with multiple awarded submissions.
Hey @danielo we understand your propensity toward generalized grant programs and venture studios as your business model.
However, again, this is a call for how Event Horizon specifically can continue building the products it has already built and has in motion for Arbitrum — there is no need for EH to construct a broad grants program for this. We are not a grants studio and in fact it would be a large time and effort suck when compared to actually building product.
Rest assured, this by no means prevents another person from creating their own grants program. However, we do ask that the intent of this proposal be respected. This a call for those who want to join the EH working group to continue what EH has been building, is building today and will be building in the future. No programs, program managers, studios, etc necessary (for this).
I think that AI-agent governance is a bad development of DAO. Initially, the meaning of DAO was decentralization, i.e. each vote had to make its contribution. This proposal is an attempt to replace a person in the fundamental procedure, voting. People who create AI only form the input data and the structure of interaction of neurons (if you can call them that), no one guarantees that the output will be the same option that a person would have formed with the same input data.
Yes, a person can make mistakes, but he is responsible for this. I think AI is a very important assistant in many areas of activity. It can collect all the pros and cons for each proposal, but it is a person who must make a decision.
is this... going to a vote? if so, to decide what? if not, why is this topic in the Proposals category?
Hey @danielo we understand your propensity toward generalized grant programs and venture studios as your business model.
However, again, this is a call for how Event Horizon specifically can continue building the products it has already built and has in motion for Arbitrum — there is no need for EH to construct a broad grants program for this. We are not a grants studio and in fact it would be a large time and effort suck when compared to actually building product.
Rest assured, this by no means prevents another person from creating their own grants program. However, we do ask that the intent of this proposal be respected. This a call for those who want to join the EH working group to continue what EH has been building, is building today and will be building in the future. No programs, program managers, studios, etc necessary (for this).
I think that AI-agent governance is a bad development of DAO. Initially, the meaning of DAO was decentralization, i.e. each vote had to make its contribution. This proposal is an attempt to replace a person in the fundamental procedure, voting. People who create AI only form the input data and the structure of interaction of neurons (if you can call them that), no one guarantees that the output will be the same option that a person would have formed with the same input data.
Yes, a person can make mistakes, but he is responsible for this. I think AI is a very important assistant in many areas of activity. It can collect all the pros and cons for each proposal, but it is a person who must make a decision.
is this... going to a vote? if so, to decide what? if not, why is this topic in the Proposals category?
