The Arbitrum DAO voted to delegate 7,000,000 ARB from its treasury to Event Horizon’s Voter Enfranchisement Pool in September 2024 for one year. At the time of posting this proposal, Event Horizon’s pool is the 19th biggest delegate by voting power, with almost all of the voting power being due to the ARB delegated from the treasury.
This proposal seeks to officially approve the pivot from the original proposal toward agentic governance and potentially significantly reduce the voting power delegated to Event Horizon’s pool.
The main motivation behind Event Horizon’s proposal, according to them, is that
…there are likely tens of thousands more incredibly talented community members who are very capable of adding to the collective cognition of the ecosystem, but simply lack the capital means to have a voice and are left discouraged from voting at all.
This is also the premise on which we (L2BEAT) decided to vote in favor of the original proposal — to experiment with enabling many community members to participate meaningfully in governance.
We haven’t seen the program fulfill this premise so far. Moreover, we understand that the program pivoted towards AI-agentic voting, which was not in the scope of the original proposal. Although we think the pivot is a good approach, we believe it deserves to be ratified by the DAO, and the voting power dedicated to Event Horizon should be adjusted until the community can get more context on and through the AIG proposal.
Regardless of how the original experiment went, we appreciate Event Horizon's willingness to find a way to make it work. We have been communicating with them over the past few months, and we appreciate their enthusiasm for helping increase governance participation. We see value in them continuing experimentation with agentic governance, but at a point where it does not significantly impact the DAO.
Simply put, a lot has changed since Event Horizon presented its original proposal. We think it’s reason enough to justify revisiting the topic of the voting power delegated to Event Horizon’s pool.
The DAO can discuss whether we should keep delegating the same amount of voting power to the voting block, amend the delegated amount, or wind down the whole initiative and return the ARB to the treasury.
After posting this proposal to the forum, we’ll post a Snapshot vote with the following options on May 29th.
A) Do nothing - acknowledge the pivot but keep the same amount of VP delegated to EH.
B) Acknowledge the pivot and reduce delegation to 100,000 ARB.
A voting power of 100,000 ARB would keep Event Horizon among meaningful-sized delegates but would not put them in a position to swing any vote decisively.
C) Wind down the whole thing and return the ARB to the treasury.
The DAO will incur no overhead in terms of resources or additional costs for executing this proposal.
May 22 - 29 → Forum Discussion
May 29 - June 5 → Snapshot Vote
June 6 → Appropriate action by the MSS if needed
The Arbitrum DAO voted to delegate 7,000,000 ARB from its treasury to Event Horizon’s Voter Enfranchisement Pool in September 2024 for one year. At the time of posting this proposal, Event Horizon’s pool is the 19th biggest delegate by voting power, with almost all of the voting power being due to the ARB delegated from the treasury.
This proposal seeks to officially approve the pivot from the original proposal toward agentic governance and potentially significantly reduce the voting power delegated to Event Horizon’s pool.
The main motivation behind Event Horizon’s proposal, according to them, is that
…there are likely tens of thousands more incredibly talented community members who are very capable of adding to the collective cognition of the ecosystem, but simply lack the capital means to have a voice and are left discouraged from voting at all.
This is also the premise on which we (L2BEAT) decided to vote in favor of the original proposal — to experiment with enabling many community members to participate meaningfully in governance.
We haven’t seen the program fulfill this premise so far. Moreover, we understand that the program pivoted towards AI-agentic voting, which was not in the scope of the original proposal. Although we think the pivot is a good approach, we believe it deserves to be ratified by the DAO, and the voting power dedicated to Event Horizon should be adjusted until the community can get more context on and through the AIG proposal.
Regardless of how the original experiment went, we appreciate Event Horizon's willingness to find a way to make it work. We have been communicating with them over the past few months, and we appreciate their enthusiasm for helping increase governance participation. We see value in them continuing experimentation with agentic governance, but at a point where it does not significantly impact the DAO.
Simply put, a lot has changed since Event Horizon presented its original proposal. We think it’s reason enough to justify revisiting the topic of the voting power delegated to Event Horizon’s pool.
The DAO can discuss whether we should keep delegating the same amount of voting power to the voting block, amend the delegated amount, or wind down the whole initiative and return the ARB to the treasury.
After posting this proposal to the forum, we’ll post a Snapshot vote with the following options on May 29th.
A) Do nothing - acknowledge the pivot but keep the same amount of VP delegated to EH.
B) Acknowledge the pivot and reduce delegation to 100,000 ARB.
A voting power of 100,000 ARB would keep Event Horizon among meaningful-sized delegates but would not put them in a position to swing any vote decisively.
C) Wind down the whole thing and return the ARB to the treasury.
The DAO will incur no overhead in terms of resources or additional costs for executing this proposal.
May 22 - 29 → Forum Discussion
May 29 - June 5 → Snapshot Vote
June 6 → Appropriate action by the MSS if needed
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/60?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/55
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/60?u=ocandocrypto
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/55
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/58?u=0x_ultra
We propose an additional option: wind down their delegation and implement a strategic reallocation plan (option D). In the meantime, we're voting C. See full reasoning here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/56
I feel there should still be voting power delegated to keep participating in future proposals
The Event Horizon Community voted B - REDUCE DELEGATION TO 100K on this proposal (ehARB-104): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-104
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/52?u=mcfly
If they aren't beneficially participating in the community then no need to have delegated votes from the treasury there.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/19?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/49?u=hawheik
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/48?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/47?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/45?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/39
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/42
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/42?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/41?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/40?u=zeptimus
https://tinyurl.com/ykm6t7um
I really like event horizen but they have not delivered any tangible value to arbitrum and have rushed to expand into as many ecosystems as possible
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/31
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/27?u=ezr3al
between the available voting options, I think Event Horizon should retain much more voting power than 100K ARB. This proposal should have been posted with several voting options for voting power, between 0 and 7M ARB. I would personally prefer for Event Horizon to retain 500K or even 1M ARB in voting power. As pointed out earlier, we should be delegating more ARB out of the treasury to actors that always cast a vote, not less ARB. Event Horizon is a worthwhile governance experiment, in many ways, and I think we should support it meaningfully, not with just 100K ARB. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/21?u=paulofonseca
Democratising lobbyism, on-chain. Check out lobbyfi.xyz
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/58?u=0x_ultra
We propose an additional option: wind down their delegation and implement a strategic reallocation plan (option D). In the meantime, we're voting C. See full reasoning here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/56
I feel there should still be voting power delegated to keep participating in future proposals
The Event Horizon Community voted B - REDUCE DELEGATION TO 100K on this proposal (ehARB-104): EventHorizon.vote/vote/arbitrum/ehARB-104
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/52?u=mcfly
If they aren't beneficially participating in the community then no need to have delegated votes from the treasury there.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/tekr0x-eth-delegate-communication-thread/24804/19?u=tekr0x.eth
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/49?u=hawheik
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/gfx-labs-delegate-communication-thread/13794
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/48?u=maxlomu
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/47?u=castlecapital
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/45?u=danielm
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/39
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/42
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/42?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/41?u=0xalex
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/40?u=zeptimus
https://tinyurl.com/ykm6t7um
I really like event horizen but they have not delivered any tangible value to arbitrum and have rushed to expand into as many ecosystems as possible
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/31
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/27?u=ezr3al
between the available voting options, I think Event Horizon should retain much more voting power than 100K ARB. This proposal should have been posted with several voting options for voting power, between 0 and 7M ARB. I would personally prefer for Event Horizon to retain 500K or even 1M ARB in voting power. As pointed out earlier, we should be delegating more ARB out of the treasury to actors that always cast a vote, not less ARB. Event Horizon is a worthwhile governance experiment, in many ways, and I think we should support it meaningfully, not with just 100K ARB. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-proposal-to-adjust-the-voting-power-of-the-arbitrum-community-pool-ratifying-the-agentic-governance-pivot/29280/21?u=paulofonseca
how did you come up with the number of 150-200? On tally, it says they've received 32 delegations.
how did you come up with the number of 150-200? On tally, it says they've received 32 delegations.
Hey @Euphoria you can find EH's update thread with metrics [here].(https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/event-horizon-updates/27339/11?u=cxgonzalez)
Hey @Euphoria you can find EH's update thread with metrics [here].(https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/event-horizon-updates/27339/11?u=cxgonzalez)
Sure, go ahead. I don’t mean to interfere with the timeline. I’m submitting a separate proposal.
Sure, go ahead. I don’t mean to interfere with the timeline. I’m submitting a separate proposal.
Thank you to L2BEAT and Event Horizon for the transparency and willingness to adapt.
The original intent behind delegating 7M ARB to Event Horizon was compelling and a bold step toward enfranchising underrepresented community members. However, it’s become evident that the outcomes haven’t aligned with the original mission, and the pivot to agentic (AI-driven) governance is a significant change that warrants a formal reassessment.
Thank you to L2BEAT and Event Horizon for the transparency and willingness to adapt.
The original intent behind delegating 7M ARB to Event Horizon was compelling and a bold step toward enfranchising underrepresented community members. However, it’s become evident that the outcomes haven’t aligned with the original mission, and the pivot to agentic (AI-driven) governance is a significant change that warrants a formal reassessment.
While I believe innovation around governance should be encouraged, especially in areas as experimental as agentic participation, such pivots must remain accountable to the DAO. This isn’t a rejection of Event Horizon’s efforts or future potential — it’s a recalibration of responsibility and alignment with community expectations.
Option B seems like the most balanced path forward. It acknowledges the ongoing experimentation without giving disproportionate influence to a model that hasn’t yet proven its legitimacy or effectiveness under the original proposal’s goals.
Reducing the delegation to 100,000 ARB allows Event Horizon to remain an active voice in governance while ensuring we uphold transparency and thoughtful stewardship of DAO funds.
Appreciate the continued collaboration from all parties involved. Looking forward to further discussions and more refined proposals as we collectively explore the future of decentralized governance.
We'd vote for B or C if this went to vote today, but as a more practical matter would also suggest holding off on one until there's been a fuller discussion around agentic governance. We don't think it's worth adjusting down to 100k or 0 and then readjusting back to a different number if that's what the DAO decides.
Thank you to L2BEAT and Event Horizon for the transparency and willingness to adapt.
The original intent behind delegating 7M ARB to Event Horizon was compelling and a bold step toward enfranchising underrepresented community members. However, it’s become evident that the outcomes haven’t aligned with the original mission, and the pivot to agentic (AI-driven) governance is a significant change that warrants a formal reassessment.
Thank you to L2BEAT and Event Horizon for the transparency and willingness to adapt.
The original intent behind delegating 7M ARB to Event Horizon was compelling and a bold step toward enfranchising underrepresented community members. However, it’s become evident that the outcomes haven’t aligned with the original mission, and the pivot to agentic (AI-driven) governance is a significant change that warrants a formal reassessment.
While I believe innovation around governance should be encouraged, especially in areas as experimental as agentic participation, such pivots must remain accountable to the DAO. This isn’t a rejection of Event Horizon’s efforts or future potential — it’s a recalibration of responsibility and alignment with community expectations.
Option B seems like the most balanced path forward. It acknowledges the ongoing experimentation without giving disproportionate influence to a model that hasn’t yet proven its legitimacy or effectiveness under the original proposal’s goals.
Reducing the delegation to 100,000 ARB allows Event Horizon to remain an active voice in governance while ensuring we uphold transparency and thoughtful stewardship of DAO funds.
Appreciate the continued collaboration from all parties involved. Looking forward to further discussions and more refined proposals as we collectively explore the future of decentralized governance.
We'd vote for B or C if this went to vote today, but as a more practical matter would also suggest holding off on one until there's been a fuller discussion around agentic governance. We don't think it's worth adjusting down to 100k or 0 and then readjusting back to a different number if that's what the DAO decides.
I support the idea of adjusting the current delegation to Event Horizon, particularly under Option B, which would reduce their allocation to a reasonable amount. However, I believe we shouldn’t simply return the remaining 6.9M ARB to the treasury and leave it idle.
Instead, I would propose that the adjusted ARB be reallocated to a new initiative, a staking-based governance access pool, inspired by the CrowdNode model used in Dash.
I support the idea of adjusting the current delegation to Event Horizon, particularly under Option B, which would reduce their allocation to a reasonable amount. However, I believe we shouldn’t simply return the remaining 6.9M ARB to the treasury and leave it idle.
Instead, I would propose that the adjusted ARB be reallocated to a new initiative, a staking-based governance access pool, inspired by the CrowdNode model used in Dash.
The idea is:
This repurposing:
I’d be happy to collaborate with others on scoping this further, but I think this is a unique opportunity to turn the delegation adjustment into a positive step forward one that strengthens participation and accountability.
I support the idea of adjusting the current delegation to Event Horizon, particularly under Option B, which would reduce their allocation to a reasonable amount. However, I believe we shouldn’t simply return the remaining 6.9M ARB to the treasury and leave it idle.
Instead, I would propose that the adjusted ARB be reallocated to a new initiative, a staking-based governance access pool, inspired by the CrowdNode model used in Dash.
I support the idea of adjusting the current delegation to Event Horizon, particularly under Option B, which would reduce their allocation to a reasonable amount. However, I believe we shouldn’t simply return the remaining 6.9M ARB to the treasury and leave it idle.
Instead, I would propose that the adjusted ARB be reallocated to a new initiative, a staking-based governance access pool, inspired by the CrowdNode model used in Dash.
The idea is:
This repurposing:
I’d be happy to collaborate with others on scoping this further, but I think this is a unique opportunity to turn the delegation adjustment into a positive step forward one that strengthens participation and accountability.
We’re voting in favor of reducing the delegation to 100K ARB.
While the original goal of empowering underrepresented contributors through the Voter Enfranchisement Pool was admirable, Event Horizon has since shifted its approach toward an AI-driven agentic governance model—one that was not officially endorsed by the DAO. This pivot, while possibly well-intentioned, diverges from the spirit of the original delegation and merits closer scrutiny.
We’re voting in favor of reducing the delegation to 100K ARB.
While the original goal of empowering underrepresented contributors through the Voter Enfranchisement Pool was admirable, Event Horizon has since shifted its approach toward an AI-driven agentic governance model—one that was not officially endorsed by the DAO. This pivot, while possibly well-intentioned, diverges from the spirit of the original delegation and merits closer scrutiny.
Given the substantial 7 million ARB voting power currently held, we believe such influence should come with clear alignment and accountability. As ITU Blockchain, we find it reasonable to reassess whether Event Horizon has delivered on the commitments made in their prior proposal before further extending or maintaining their influence.
Reducing the delegation to 100K ARB is, in our view, a balanced path forward. It acknowledges the need for ongoing experimentation while ensuring that governance power remains proportionate, transparent, and reflective of the broader DAO’s direction. For these reasons, we support this adjustment.
I have voted OPTION B (B - Reduce delegation to 100K), given EH themselves are pushing for this, and they attempting to evolve to a AI centric solution. I think arguments to proceed are reasonable and a 100K maintained amount is not big enough to prevent the experiment from moving forward. Looking forward to see how this goes.
Quick update:
Following the successful Snapshot vote (with more than 3% of the votable supply participating), and with the option to reduce the voting power delegated to Event Horizon to 100,000 ARB being the most voted option, the MSS has initiated a transaction to return 6,900,000 ARB back to the DAO's treasury.
Decision Summary
I voted in favor because the original 7 M ARB delegation was meant to broaden human voter participation, and the pivot to a large-scale agentic pilot hasn’t yet justified such an outsized vote share.
Voting Rationale
Decision Summary
I voted in favor because the original 7 M ARB delegation was meant to broaden human voter participation, and the pivot to a large-scale agentic pilot hasn’t yet justified such an outsized vote share.
Voting Rationale
Mandate Drift
Underwhelming Results to Date
Expectation Mis-Alignment
Scale the Pilot Down
Accountability Precedent
Support for AI Tools—Start Small
Conclusion
Reducing the delegation to 100 k ARB realigns this experiment with its original spirit, clears space to define measurable success, and keeps the door open for innovative agentic governance—without distorting the DAO’s voting balance.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting for B reduce the delegation to 100K. Below the rationale:
We’re voting in favor of reducing the delegation to 100K ARB.
While the original goal of empowering underrepresented contributors through the Voter Enfranchisement Pool was admirable, Event Horizon has since shifted its approach toward an AI-driven agentic governance model—one that was not officially endorsed by the DAO. This pivot, while possibly well-intentioned, diverges from the spirit of the original delegation and merits closer scrutiny.
We’re voting in favor of reducing the delegation to 100K ARB.
While the original goal of empowering underrepresented contributors through the Voter Enfranchisement Pool was admirable, Event Horizon has since shifted its approach toward an AI-driven agentic governance model—one that was not officially endorsed by the DAO. This pivot, while possibly well-intentioned, diverges from the spirit of the original delegation and merits closer scrutiny.
Given the substantial 7 million ARB voting power currently held, we believe such influence should come with clear alignment and accountability. As ITU Blockchain, we find it reasonable to reassess whether Event Horizon has delivered on the commitments made in their prior proposal before further extending or maintaining their influence.
Reducing the delegation to 100K ARB is, in our view, a balanced path forward. It acknowledges the need for ongoing experimentation while ensuring that governance power remains proportionate, transparent, and reflective of the broader DAO’s direction. For these reasons, we support this adjustment.
I have voted OPTION B (B - Reduce delegation to 100K), given EH themselves are pushing for this, and they attempting to evolve to a AI centric solution. I think arguments to proceed are reasonable and a 100K maintained amount is not big enough to prevent the experiment from moving forward. Looking forward to see how this goes.
Quick update:
Following the successful Snapshot vote (with more than 3% of the votable supply participating), and with the option to reduce the voting power delegated to Event Horizon to 100,000 ARB being the most voted option, the MSS has initiated a transaction to return 6,900,000 ARB back to the DAO's treasury.
Decision Summary
I voted in favor because the original 7 M ARB delegation was meant to broaden human voter participation, and the pivot to a large-scale agentic pilot hasn’t yet justified such an outsized vote share.
Voting Rationale
Decision Summary
I voted in favor because the original 7 M ARB delegation was meant to broaden human voter participation, and the pivot to a large-scale agentic pilot hasn’t yet justified such an outsized vote share.
Voting Rationale
Mandate Drift
Underwhelming Results to Date
Expectation Mis-Alignment
Scale the Pilot Down
Accountability Precedent
Support for AI Tools—Start Small
Conclusion
Reducing the delegation to 100 k ARB realigns this experiment with its original spirit, clears space to define measurable success, and keeps the door open for innovative agentic governance—without distorting the DAO’s voting balance.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting for B reduce the delegation to 100K. Below the rationale:
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.
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.
I will be voting B - 100k ARB reduction.
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.
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:
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 Event Horizon community supported Option B:
Result: Option B adopted
Summary: The proposal option to reduce Event Horizon's delegation from 7,000,000 ARB to 100,000 ARB has passed with overwhelming support.
The Event Horizon community supported Option B:
Result: Option B adopted
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.
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.
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.
gm, voting for B - Reducing voting power to 100k.
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.
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.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation decided to vote "B (Reduce Delegation to 100K)" on this proposal at the Snapshot 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.
My vote is for Option C.
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.
My vote is for Option C.
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.
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.
I will be voting B - 100k ARB reduction.
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.
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:
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 Event Horizon community supported Option B:
Result: Option B adopted
Summary: The proposal option to reduce Event Horizon's delegation from 7,000,000 ARB to 100,000 ARB has passed with overwhelming support.
The Event Horizon community supported Option B:
Result: Option B adopted
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.
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.
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.
gm, voting for B - Reducing voting power to 100k.
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.
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.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation decided to vote "B (Reduce Delegation to 100K)" on this proposal at the Snapshot 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.
My vote is for Option C.
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.
My vote is for Option C.
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.
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.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation decided to vote "B (Reduce Delegation to 100K)" on this proposal at the Snapshot 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.
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.
Voting for Option C: reduce delegation to 0.
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.
Voting for Option C: reduce delegation to 0.
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.
but don’t you think that a proposal to cancel something in this DAO…
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.
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.
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.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation decided to vote "B (Reduce Delegation to 100K)" on this proposal at the Snapshot 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.
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.
Voting for Option C: reduce delegation to 0.
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.
Voting for Option C: reduce delegation to 0.
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.
but don’t you think that a proposal to cancel something in this DAO…
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.
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.
I voted to remove all delegation, and the reasoning is stated above. That being said, I wish the team good luck, and I will be following the AGI discussion.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting for Option B: Reduce the delegation to 100k ARB in the Snapshot Voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting for Option B: Reduce the delegation to 100k ARB in the Snapshot Voting.
As we’ve shared in our earlier comment, we aligned with the original mission of the Voter Enfranchisement Pool. However, we believe the pool didn’t reach its full potential within Arbitrum, largely due to limited marketing efforts targeting the right audience. As I'm an individual voter in Event Horizon as well, I’ve observed the dynamics closely.
Looking at the current state of the initiative, the focus has clearly shifted away from the enfranchisement pool towards building agentic governance infrastructure. For example, during Event Horizon’s recent vote on their platform, 212 votes were cast. It’s unclear how many of these were submitted by human voters using agents versus the agents themselves. Based on our past observations, the vote count before agentic governance integration was noticeably lower.
Given that Event Horizon has moved fully toward AI agent development and is reportedly preparing a working group and an AGI-focused proposal, we believe it makes sense to scale down the delegation temporarily. Option B allows participants to feel meaningfully still involved while giving Event Horizon the space to test agentic governance within the DAO using a non-influential amount of delegated ARB.
A delegation of 100k ARB does not pose any governance risk, yet it enables EH to continue experimentation and provide useful data, such as how many unique users are actually using AI agents to vote and how the quality of participation is changing.
Also, thank you @cxgonzalez for directing towards the update post. However, we echo @Curia’s observation that the shared post doesn’t present the full metrics expected, such as historical voter breakdowns, engagement quality, or progress benchmarks. We look forward to a more comprehensive performance report that aligns with what was committed in the original Tally proposal.
Lastly, we see this vote as a way to give thoughtful space for experimentation while ensuring accountability in how delegated voting power is handled.
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.
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.
We are voting Option C: Wind down the whole initiative and return the ARB to the treasury because the current implementation no longer aligns with the original purpose of the approved proposal.
Event Horizon initially received a 7 million ARB delegation to experiment with a public-access voter pool aimed at broadening meaningful community participation in governance. However, the program has since pivoted to an AI-driven, agentic governance model—a fundamental shift that was not part of the original mandate and has not yet been ratified by the DAO.
I'm voting B: Acknowledge the pivot and reduce delegation to 100,000 ARB.
The original Event Horizon proposal was to empower community members lacking capital to participate in governance. This pivot to AI agents completely abandons that mission without DAO approval.
I'm voting B: Acknowledge the pivot and reduce delegation to 100,000 ARB.
The original Event Horizon proposal was to empower community members lacking capital to participate in governance. This pivot to AI agents completely abandons that mission without DAO approval.
As someone who values clear accountability mechanisms, this unauthorized pivot is problematic. We delegated 7M ARB for voter enfranchisement, not AI experimentation.
That being said, I appreciate Event Horizon's continued engagement and voting participation. They've shown up consistently, which deserves recognition. The 100k ARB delegation keeps them in the game and experimenting with Agents as a meaningful delegate while removing their ability to swing major votes.
I agree with the sentiment shared by many delegates in this thread that we need to delegate more ARB to solve the quorum problem. The point is fair, but it's not the main topic of this discussion. We should create a separate proposal specifically addressing quorum solutions. I'd personally support delegating to active participants as many are already suggesting, but we need deeper analysis and proper discussion in another thread dedicated to that issue.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the proposal and opting for reducing the delegation down to 100,000 ARB.
Being the ones who submitted the proposal in the first place, it’s obvious why we’re supportive of it.
but don't you think that a proposal to cancel something in this DAO...
should at least comply with the same thresholds as the proposals that were passed to implement it.
??
We vote for B - Reduce delegation to 100K.
Our primary rationale for supporting this proposal is straightforward:
We vote for B - Reduce delegation to 100K.
Our primary rationale for supporting this proposal is straightforward:
Initially, the delegation of 7M ARB to Event Horizon had a defined purpose, to empower undercapitalized community members to meaningfully participate in governance. However, the significant pivot toward agentic governance represents a departure from the original mandate, making the reduction of delegated ARB a logical and necessary adjustment.
While our first inclination was to reduce the delegation to 0 ARB, we agree with Sinkas's rationale for maintaining a minimal delegation:
Ultimately, we decided to propose a specific amount, which we believe adequately reflects the experimental nature of Event Horizon’s AGI, granting them meaningful voting power but not enough to impact the DAO significantly. On one hand, this amount is in the range of some of the active delegates, so EventHorizon participants can get some feeling of meaningfully participating in the DAO, but at the same time, it does not pose a significant risk to the outcomes if the agentic governance experiment experiences some unexpected issues.
This balanced view aligns well with our perspective that innovative governance experiments deserve measured support. A delegation of 100k ARB strikes an appropriate balance between fostering innovation and managing potential risks to DAO governance processes.
Regarding quorum concerns expressed by some community members, we recognize this issue’s importance but believe it should be handled separately. Decisions about delegation sizes for specific experiments like Event Horizon should not be influenced solely by quorum considerations. Should quorum attainment become challenging, the DAO can explore solutions like broader treasury delegation or adjusting quorum thresholds. Maintaining a disproportionately large delegation to any single entity solely to address quorum concerns may not reflect best governance practices.
In summary, we support reducing Event Horizon’s delegation to 100k ARB to encourage continued innovation while responsibly managing governance risks.
At this time, I don't see any valid reasons why LobbyFi shouldn't turn on an auction for its voting power pool. I would only suggest maintaining a higher threshold for casting a vote, around the level of the instant buy price. After all, LobbyFi is a permissionless protocol, and it's okay with me if the ~150-200 EventHorizon users utilizing AI agents to make governance decisions in Arbitrum collectively auction the LobbyFi voting power to express their will to leave the EventHorizon pool as is.
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.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal:
Since some may perceive LobbyFi and Event Horizon as opposing voting blocs, we would like to leave it open to discussion whether or not we shall make the voting power available for this proposal, for the sake of maintaining a certain degree of neutrality. We will make it available this weekend/Monday at the latest unless there are strong arguments raised in the meantime. The auction will be on (since Event Horizon is a community tool and we could not identify a single profiteer of any of the outcomes). The instant buy price will be set at 0.1% of our VP’s worth in ETH terms—2.5 ETH.
We appreciate @Sinkas bringing this proposal forward and agree that the DAO should ratify Event Horizon’s pivot only after seeing hard evidence of how the experiment is working. To let delegates choose fairly between Options A, B, and C,
As @Euphoria noted, we would still like Event Horizon to deliver the bi-annual KPI report it promised last September, ideally before the Snapshot opens. A live Dune or Flipside dashboard would be just as useful, We appreciate Event Horizon’s update, but several essential data that we would like to learn more including:
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.
I voted to remove all delegation, and the reasoning is stated above. That being said, I wish the team good luck, and I will be following the AGI discussion.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting for Option B: Reduce the delegation to 100k ARB in the Snapshot Voting.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting for Option B: Reduce the delegation to 100k ARB in the Snapshot Voting.
As we’ve shared in our earlier comment, we aligned with the original mission of the Voter Enfranchisement Pool. However, we believe the pool didn’t reach its full potential within Arbitrum, largely due to limited marketing efforts targeting the right audience. As I'm an individual voter in Event Horizon as well, I’ve observed the dynamics closely.
Looking at the current state of the initiative, the focus has clearly shifted away from the enfranchisement pool towards building agentic governance infrastructure. For example, during Event Horizon’s recent vote on their platform, 212 votes were cast. It’s unclear how many of these were submitted by human voters using agents versus the agents themselves. Based on our past observations, the vote count before agentic governance integration was noticeably lower.
Given that Event Horizon has moved fully toward AI agent development and is reportedly preparing a working group and an AGI-focused proposal, we believe it makes sense to scale down the delegation temporarily. Option B allows participants to feel meaningfully still involved while giving Event Horizon the space to test agentic governance within the DAO using a non-influential amount of delegated ARB.
A delegation of 100k ARB does not pose any governance risk, yet it enables EH to continue experimentation and provide useful data, such as how many unique users are actually using AI agents to vote and how the quality of participation is changing.
Also, thank you @cxgonzalez for directing towards the update post. However, we echo @Curia’s observation that the shared post doesn’t present the full metrics expected, such as historical voter breakdowns, engagement quality, or progress benchmarks. We look forward to a more comprehensive performance report that aligns with what was committed in the original Tally proposal.
Lastly, we see this vote as a way to give thoughtful space for experimentation while ensuring accountability in how delegated voting power is handled.
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.
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.
We are voting Option C: Wind down the whole initiative and return the ARB to the treasury because the current implementation no longer aligns with the original purpose of the approved proposal.
Event Horizon initially received a 7 million ARB delegation to experiment with a public-access voter pool aimed at broadening meaningful community participation in governance. However, the program has since pivoted to an AI-driven, agentic governance model—a fundamental shift that was not part of the original mandate and has not yet been ratified by the DAO.
I'm voting B: Acknowledge the pivot and reduce delegation to 100,000 ARB.
The original Event Horizon proposal was to empower community members lacking capital to participate in governance. This pivot to AI agents completely abandons that mission without DAO approval.
I'm voting B: Acknowledge the pivot and reduce delegation to 100,000 ARB.
The original Event Horizon proposal was to empower community members lacking capital to participate in governance. This pivot to AI agents completely abandons that mission without DAO approval.
As someone who values clear accountability mechanisms, this unauthorized pivot is problematic. We delegated 7M ARB for voter enfranchisement, not AI experimentation.
That being said, I appreciate Event Horizon's continued engagement and voting participation. They've shown up consistently, which deserves recognition. The 100k ARB delegation keeps them in the game and experimenting with Agents as a meaningful delegate while removing their ability to swing major votes.
I agree with the sentiment shared by many delegates in this thread that we need to delegate more ARB to solve the quorum problem. The point is fair, but it's not the main topic of this discussion. We should create a separate proposal specifically addressing quorum solutions. I'd personally support delegating to active participants as many are already suggesting, but we need deeper analysis and proper discussion in another thread dedicated to that issue.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the proposal and opting for reducing the delegation down to 100,000 ARB.
Being the ones who submitted the proposal in the first place, it’s obvious why we’re supportive of it.
but don't you think that a proposal to cancel something in this DAO...
should at least comply with the same thresholds as the proposals that were passed to implement it.
??
We vote for B - Reduce delegation to 100K.
Our primary rationale for supporting this proposal is straightforward:
We vote for B - Reduce delegation to 100K.
Our primary rationale for supporting this proposal is straightforward:
Initially, the delegation of 7M ARB to Event Horizon had a defined purpose, to empower undercapitalized community members to meaningfully participate in governance. However, the significant pivot toward agentic governance represents a departure from the original mandate, making the reduction of delegated ARB a logical and necessary adjustment.
While our first inclination was to reduce the delegation to 0 ARB, we agree with Sinkas's rationale for maintaining a minimal delegation:
Ultimately, we decided to propose a specific amount, which we believe adequately reflects the experimental nature of Event Horizon’s AGI, granting them meaningful voting power but not enough to impact the DAO significantly. On one hand, this amount is in the range of some of the active delegates, so EventHorizon participants can get some feeling of meaningfully participating in the DAO, but at the same time, it does not pose a significant risk to the outcomes if the agentic governance experiment experiences some unexpected issues.
This balanced view aligns well with our perspective that innovative governance experiments deserve measured support. A delegation of 100k ARB strikes an appropriate balance between fostering innovation and managing potential risks to DAO governance processes.
Regarding quorum concerns expressed by some community members, we recognize this issue’s importance but believe it should be handled separately. Decisions about delegation sizes for specific experiments like Event Horizon should not be influenced solely by quorum considerations. Should quorum attainment become challenging, the DAO can explore solutions like broader treasury delegation or adjusting quorum thresholds. Maintaining a disproportionately large delegation to any single entity solely to address quorum concerns may not reflect best governance practices.
In summary, we support reducing Event Horizon’s delegation to 100k ARB to encourage continued innovation while responsibly managing governance risks.
At this time, I don't see any valid reasons why LobbyFi shouldn't turn on an auction for its voting power pool. I would only suggest maintaining a higher threshold for casting a vote, around the level of the instant buy price. After all, LobbyFi is a permissionless protocol, and it's okay with me if the ~150-200 EventHorizon users utilizing AI agents to make governance decisions in Arbitrum collectively auction the LobbyFi voting power to express their will to leave the EventHorizon pool as is.
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.
LobbyFi’s rationale on the price and making the voting power available for sale for this proposal:
Since some may perceive LobbyFi and Event Horizon as opposing voting blocs, we would like to leave it open to discussion whether or not we shall make the voting power available for this proposal, for the sake of maintaining a certain degree of neutrality. We will make it available this weekend/Monday at the latest unless there are strong arguments raised in the meantime. The auction will be on (since Event Horizon is a community tool and we could not identify a single profiteer of any of the outcomes). The instant buy price will be set at 0.1% of our VP’s worth in ETH terms—2.5 ETH.
We appreciate @Sinkas bringing this proposal forward and agree that the DAO should ratify Event Horizon’s pivot only after seeing hard evidence of how the experiment is working. To let delegates choose fairly between Options A, B, and C,
As @Euphoria noted, we would still like Event Horizon to deliver the bi-annual KPI report it promised last September, ideally before the Snapshot opens. A live Dune or Flipside dashboard would be just as useful, We appreciate Event Horizon’s update, but several essential data that we would like to learn more including:
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.
We are voting Option C: Wind down the whole initiative and return the ARB to the treasury because the current implementation no longer aligns with the original purpose of the approved proposal.
Event Horizon initially received a 7 million ARB delegation to experiment with a public-access voter pool aimed at broadening meaningful community participation in governance. However, the program has since pivoted to an AI-driven, agentic governance model—a fundamental shift that was not part of the original mandate and has not yet been ratified by the DAO.
While we support innovation and experimentation in governance, significant changes to the scope and intent of a treasury-backed initiative should be brought back to the DAO for explicit approval. Until such a revised proposal is submitted and evaluated by the community, we believe it is necessary and appropriate to wind down the current initiative and return the ARB to the treasury.
That said, we strongly recommend that the 7 million ARB not remain idle. Instead, the DAO should explore new ways to redeploy these tokens to continue supporting quorum and enhancing inclusive participation. Should Event Horizon wish to pursue delegation again under a new model, we would welcome a formal proposal clearly outlining their updated goals, structure, and evaluation metrics.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the proposal and opting for reducing the delegation down to 100,000 ARB.
Being the ones who submitted the proposal in the first place, it’s obvious why we’re supportive of it.
We believe that the 100k ARB voting power will be meaningful enough for EH participants to feel the experience of participating in governance, it's at ~ the same level as some other active delegates in the DAO. After all, the pool votes as one, so even if other people are involved in the experiment, each participant is part of casting the vote for the whole pool.
At the same time, 100k ARB voting power does not make Event Horizon an attractive target for capture attacks. While the pool is meaningful, it is unlikely to sway the vote by itself. This allows us to focus on analyzing Event Horizon on its merit as a frontier builder of agentic governance, rather than its impact on vote outcomes.
We look forward to seeing how the Event Horizon team can support delegates in making better decisions and having more productive discussions about proposals with their agentic governance tooling. We believe this area has a lot of potential and, if proven valuable, could lead delegates to use these tools to support their own decisions, utilizing their own voting power.
but don't you think that a proposal to cancel something in this DAO...
should at least comply with the same thresholds as the proposals that were passed to implement it.
??
for example... do you think it should be possible to clawback GCP funding with an offchain vote that doesn't meet the 3% quorum and has a result of 51% For and 49% Against?
that doesn't seem right to me. like at all.
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 https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/agentic-governance-initiative-agi/29244 and what can be done with AI agents within Arbitrum.
We appreciate @Sinkas bringing this proposal forward and agree that the DAO should ratify Event Horizon’s pivot only after seeing hard evidence of how the experiment is working. To let delegates choose fairly between Options A, B, and C,
As @Euphoria noted, we would still like Event Horizon to deliver the bi-annual KPI report it promised last September, ideally before the Snapshot opens. A live Dune or Flipside dashboard would be just as useful, We appreciate Event Horizon’s update, but several essential data that we would like to learn more including:
Even if the published metrics would not materially sway this vote, they are still critical. Event Horizon originally received 7 million ARB so the community could test whether a “public-access voter pool” broadens meaningful participation. Without the promised data, the DAO loses a valuable opportunity to assess what the experiment accomplished, learn from it, and improve future initiatives.
Since Event Horizon has pivoted to an AGI-driven voting model, something never contemplated in the September 2024 mandate, their current role no longer aligns with what the DAO approved. In light of that fundamental change, clawing back the 7 million ARB delegation is reasonable. At the same time, as @JOJO noted, we must consider any knock-on effects this might have on the Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction proposal; thoughtful coordination is essential to avoid unintended governance disruptions.
if we strip event horizon of 6.9 or 7 millions of votes, we would effectively negate a good quarter, numerically wise, of the proposal above. Unless, of course, we find a way to redelegate these 7 millions to other entities but knowing that what happend to event horizon was more of an exception than a rule and that we never pursued this road for other delegates it feels unrealistic to think it might happen in a short timespan.
but If the DAO decides to pull back the full 7 million ARB from Event Horizon, we shouldn’t let those tokens sit idle. Instead, We suggest exploring a plan to put the remaining 7 million ARB, currently counted toward quorum back into active use while still reinforcing our quorum threshold.
(1) Revive “(Re)delegation Week” : Open applications to small delegates with a proven voting record, evaluate them through the standard DAO process, split the 7M ARB evenly among those who meet the participation benchmarks then splits the 7M ARB evenly among them and run it as a pilot program for a three-month before being reevaluated.
(2) Redistribute the ARB to the top Delegate Incentive Program performers from the last three months who each hold under 100k VP, giving them a multiplier boost for a three-month trial.
For Option 2, we reviewed the past DIP results and compiled a spreadsheet to identify eligible delegates; eight individuals meet the criteria under this approach.
Below is the list of top performers whose average voting power over the past three months is under 100 000 ARB and whose DIP score exceeds 65. (Table)
In either case, the 7 million ARB would remain staked and actively used for voting, ensuring they continue to support our recent quorum adjustment.
Here is about 150 votes (last voting on their platform)
I voted FOR wind down the whole thing and return the ARB to the treasury
I voted FOR wind down the whole thing and return the ARB to the treasury
Why do I want to exclude all VP and leave nothing? The thing is that Event Horizon is not really a delegate in the literal sense, since it does not have its own opinion, but is a proxy for the opinions of other delegates, who also have their own VP. Therefore, there is no great sense in leaving 100,000 votes
Camelot supports Option B to reduce the delegation to 100,000 ARB. At the time of the original proposal, Camelot voted against the initiative since we believed it was not bringing any meaningful value to the DAO. The subsequent change in scope from voter enfranchisement to AI-agentic governance provides, in our opinion, one more additional reason to reassess the delegated amount. However, we recognize the potential value in experimenting with agents in governance, with an amount that is limited to 100,000 ARB delegated versus the initial 7M used by not too many users. AI is increasingly pervasive across various sectors and will likely find relevant use cases in DAO operations and decision-making processes. This represents a legitimate area for controlled experimentation.
Due to this recognition and the fact that only a few months remain for this proposal’s original term, we suggest reducing the delegation to 100,000 ARB and analyzing the results in Q4. This approach allows Event Horizon to continue their agentic governance experimentation while significantly reducing the potential impact on DAO voting outcomes.
Is pretty clear at this point that they are taking a different road from where it started. And it’s ok, since 1 year in crypto is a lot of time and pivots and changes can happen.
Is pretty clear at this point that they are taking a different road from where it started. And it’s ok, since 1 year in crypto is a lot of time and pivots and changes can happen.
One thing I am very afraid of: option B and C might just be not realistically achievable right now.
With the current constitutional proposal to reduce quorum from 5 to 4.5%, we have the following:
if we strip event horizon of 6.9 or 7 millions of votes, we would effectively negate a good quarter, numerically wise, of the proposal above. Unless, of course, we find a way to redelegate these 7 millions to other entities but knowing that what happend to event horizon was more of an exception than a rule and that we never pursued this road for other delegates it feels unrealistic to think it might happen in a short timespan.
I’m personally slightly neutral/negative on agents for governance. I have had a few calls with a few teams working on these iterations, and I have always suggested incorporating a series of data sources and behaviours consistent with what @danielo recently posted in a twitter thread to even try to get something that is not a simple rubber stamp.
This to say, I don’t love the pivot of Event Horizon, but I am way more concerned about losing 7 millions in active voting power in the same moment in which we are just putting a bandage on the quorum looking for stronger long term solutions.
As it is today, I would vote in favor of option A, not specifically to support EH, but to ensure the 7 million arbs stay active in the pool of active voters.
Flipping my stance here, and voting in favour of reducing the voting power of Event Horizon to 100,000.
I have spent the last few days talking to several delegates, specifically
I have to say, I approached the problem from the wrong point of view. First, the major flaw: comingling the current quorum problem with this proposal. Yes, we are struggling more and more in reaching quorum; but it doesn't mean we need two mix two very different situations. At most, this proposal should be another reminder that we collectively need to put more effort to increase the delegated amount of ARB.
Second, the specificity of the request. At the time I voted in favor of EH because the idea of allowing smaller delegates and holders to access an higher pool of VP was potentially a good idea. What we have seen tho, and this came also from the chats I have had lately, is that this didn't specifically happen: the product didn't really get too much traction apparently. Now, we have this pivot toward agents. As stated above, is something I don't like. Is just too easy to fool agents, is just quite complex to plug in all the sources you would need for an agent to behave as you want. I don't believe that, as it is now, governance is ready to use efficiently AI. At the same time as other posted it would be shortsighted to not think that AI will have a pervasive role in our life and also in DAOs. For this reason, instead of totally disbanding the initiative, I am voting to keep running the experiment through agents with a lower amount of voting power, an amount that will not bear any tangible consequence on governance but will also allow us to gather some data for the few remaining months of the initiative.
After posting this proposal to the forum, we’ll post a Snapshot vote with the following options on May 29th
@Sinkas this proposal should only be valid if it has more than the 3% non-constitutional quorum right?
After posting this proposal to the forum, we’ll post a Snapshot vote with the following options on May 29th
@Sinkas this proposal should only be valid if it has more than the 3% non-constitutional quorum right?
this is a proposal to undo something that was approved with an offchain vote and then an onchain vote as well. So it should at least comply with the same thresholds as the proposals that were passed to implement it.
i think the lobbyfi vote should be made available in all offchain and onchain votes (excluding only security council maybe) at least just to count towards quorum. and I think it would be best if this criteria would be enforceable onchain, and immutable.
voting A - Do Nothing on this offchain vote because between the available voting options, I think Event Horizon should retain much more voting power than 100K ARB. This proposal should have been posted with several voting options for voting power, between 0 and 7M ARB. I would personally prefer for Event Horizon to retain 500K or even 1M ARB in voting power. As pointed out earlier, we should be delegating more ARB out of the treasury to actors that always cast a vote, not less ARB. Event Horizon is a worthwhile governance experiment, in many ways, and I think we should support it meaningfully, not with just 100K ARB.
I think this proposal, as a temp check, should include other voting options like 500k ARB and 1M ARB, so delegates can have more sensible options between 100k and 7M ARB.
I think this proposal, as a temp check, should include other voting options like 500k ARB and 1M ARB, so delegates can have more sensible options between 100k and 7M ARB.
We initially discussed internally whether we should suggest a specific amount to be delegated, provide multiple options, or leave the amount open-ended for determination through a DAO-wide conversation.
Ultimately, we decided to propose a specific amount, which we believe adequately reflects the experimental nature of Event Horizon's AGI, granting them meaningful voting power but not enough to impact the DAO significantly. On one hand, this amount is in the range of some of the active delegates, so EventHorizon participants can get some feeling of meaningfully participating in the DAO, but at the same time, it does not pose a significant risk to the outcomes if the agentic governance experiment experiences some unexpected issues.
This would require a separate proposal to be submitted to the DAO and undergo the governance process. This is outside the scope of the proposal, and since there's no such proposal currently, we will not alter the timeline or the proposed choices.
This to say, I don’t love the pivot of Event Horizon, but I am way more concerned about losing 7 millions in active voting power in the same moment in which we are just putting a bandage on the quorum looking for stronger long term solutions.
This is a valid concern, but we don't think it's reason enough not to submit the above proposal. After all, EventHorizon was never meant to “defend the quorum”; if we use it in that way, we’re adding risks and responsibilities to something that is experimental in nature already. Furthermore, the original proposal would end soon anyway, so even if we leave things as is now for the sake of easier quorum, we’re just shifting the problem a few months into the future. In our opinion, we should address quorum issues separately with different solutions and let EventHorizon experiment focus on what they’re passionate about - agentic governance.
We’d vote for B or C if this went to vote today, but as a more practical matter would also suggest holding off on one until there’s been a fuller discussion around agentic governance.
The purpose of our proposed reduction in voting power is precisely to provide the DAO with additional context on their Agentic Governance Initiative (AGI), without, however, empowering it with the full 7,000,000 ARB that we originally voted in favor of giving to Event Horizon.
With more context and time for things to unfold, delegates will be better able to assess the impact of AGI and determine how to proceed from there.
I support this proposal, but I think it is unclear where the 100,000 ARB came from, why exactly this amount?
Why is 100 k ARB the right experimental size versus intermediate options such as 500 k or 1 M?
There are no complicated calculations behind the amount proposed. It's an educated guesstimate of the appropriate voting power. With 100,000 ARB delegated from the treasury, Event Horizon would be placed approximately among the top 100 delegates, putting it among some familiar faces of Arbitrum DAO - so still being a relevant vote, but at the same time not posing significant risk.
(2) If 6.9 million ARB is returned, does the Foundation have a plan to redelegate some or all of it to other delegates?
We are not aware of any plans from the Foundation to propose a treasury delegation program.As such, if we end up decreasing EH’s delegation to 100k ARB, the 6.9M ARB tokens would be returned to the treasury (therefore reducing the votable supply), and wouldn’t be redelegated. As also mentioned in our response to Emmanuel above, to allocate the funds to a different initiative, a separate proposal would need to be submitted.
I support Option B here as well. Other delegates made good points that the initial proposal has changed and how Event Horizon operates. Although the change is significant, 100k ARB are still a good amount and makes sure that they are also not dropping out of the DIP.
If my understanding is correct, Event Horizon received 7M ARB to empower underrepresented community members and broaden human participation in governance.
We haven’t seen the program fulfill this premise so far. Moreover, we understand that the program pivoted towards AI-agentic voting, which was not in the scope of the original proposal.
If my understanding is correct, Event Horizon received 7M ARB to empower underrepresented community members and broaden human participation in governance.
We haven’t seen the program fulfill this premise so far. Moreover, we understand that the program pivoted towards AI-agentic voting, which was not in the scope of the original proposal.
Their pivot toward AI-agentic voting is a completely different direction — one that, in my view, deserves its own dedicated proposal and approval process.
I’m not against experimentation or AI in governance, but this kind of shift should go back through the DAO for explicit consent. The original delegation wasn’t meant to cover a fundamentally new approach.
For now, I will continue following the discussion and hear all sides, but I’m leaning toward option B, or even C.
@Sinkas this proposal should only be valid if it has more than the 3% non-constitutional quorum right?
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
When Event Horizon proposed the Voter Enfranchisement Pool, we were aligned with its core idea, to test an experimental approach to empowering community members who want to participate in governance but lack sufficient voting power.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
When Event Horizon proposed the Voter Enfranchisement Pool, we were aligned with its core idea, to test an experimental approach to empowering community members who want to participate in governance but lack sufficient voting power.
In fact, we have also guided some new users (who wanted to participate in governance) towards this path to help them understand how governance participation works and to feel more connected to the decision-making process.
Also, we know that there were discussions around the marketing efforts specifically for the Arbitrum community pool. One of the possible reasons we haven't seen the full impact reflected in participation metrics might be that the pool has not yet reached its ideal target audience effectively. It’s likely that with better outreach, more users would have leveraged this opportunity as originally intended.
While reviewing this proposal’s options on adjusting the delegation, we also revisited the Tally proposal passed last September, which committed to bi-annual reporting, including KPIs. So now it's more than 6 months, apart from the Event Horizon Updates Thread, we wanted to know if such a report has been made public and we have missed them, or if they are still forthcoming. @EventHorizonDAO @DonOfDAOs
Regarding the pivot towards agentic governance, we acknowledge that agentic governance is an emerging trend in DAO governance, and other ecosystems are actively investing in it. As a team, we are working on agentic governance development for Optimism ourselves.
That said, we want to emphasize that agentic governance is a separate and distinct initiative from the original Voter Enfranchisement Pool. While we appreciate Event Horizon’s work on agentic governance for Arbitrum, we believe this direction deserves its own dedicated proposal, as in AGI.
Thanks for this proposal.
As the AGI is an inititiave that will take time to produce a proposal for a vote, and because of the reasosn explained by the OP, I believe it makes sense to remove the VP now. The reasons were already metioned by other delegates, but my reasoning is that the AI approach does not incentive governance interaction by underrepresented actors.
I was initially skeptical about this initiative. This is due to the following:
So the original 7M ARB was meant to empower human voters, but shifting to AI agents is a fundamental change that was never formally approved by the DAO? EH's delegation has drifted from its original purpose, and this lack of alignment is concerning to me tbh.
I appreciate Event Horizon’s efforts, but using AI agents to vote on behalf of the DAO raises serious questions, particularly around transparency. We don’t have a clear understanding of how these agents make decisions, what values guide them, or where to see their voting record.
AranaDigital supports Option B—acknowledge the pivot to agentic governance and reduce the Event Horizon delegation from 7 million to 100 thousand ARB—because the shift from a human voter–enfranchisement pool to AI-driven voting is a fundamental change that requires renewed consent from the DAO. Reducing the stake minimizes governance risk while still allowing the team to continue testing agentic tools at a scale that cannot swing votes on its own. Before the Snapshot, we request clarity on three issues: (1) Will Event Horizon publish detailed agent logic, decision criteria, and a public dashboard of vote history so delegates can audit outcomes? (2) If 6.9 million ARB is returned, does the Foundation have a plan to redelegate some or all of it to other delegates? (3) Why is 100 k ARB the right experimental size versus intermediate options such as 500 k or 1 M?
I am have not been following with a ton of attention the event horizon evolution but I know that both you and @krst have instead had a keen eye toward it, questioning if it was still executing based on mandate, if it would still make sense in the optic of what was it voted for etc.
Is pretty clear at this point that they are taking a different road from where it started. And it's ok, since 1 year in crypto is a lot of time and pivots and changes can happen.
This is Brook @rooktc from TiD Research. We share the concerns raised about Event Horizon’s pivot to an agentic governance model. This approach is entirely new, untested, and wasn’t part of the original delegation proposal from September 2024, which aimed to empower human voters. Allocating 7M ARB to an unproven AI-driven experiment feels too risky, especially without transparency on the agents’ decision-making logic.
Addressing JoJo’s concern about the quorum impact, I agree that removing 7M ARB could theoretically negate a portion of the proposed quorum reduction by AF.
Thank you to L2BEAT for raising this proposal and the discussion about governance agentic experiments.
We agree that EH's shift warrants formal acknowledgment and re-evaluation of the delegated voting power.
Thank you to L2BEAT for raising this proposal and the discussion about governance agentic experiments.
We agree that EH's shift warrants formal acknowledgment and re-evaluation of the delegated voting power.
For these reasons, we are inclined to support Option B: acknowledge the pivot and reduce delegation to 100,000 ARB, maintaining alignment with the DAO's values of experimentation and inclusivity while minimizing exposure to potential unintended influence.
Hey @Jojo, one of the functions we’ve noted is our platform as a credibly neutral and open access source to support quorum.
That said, we’d also like to gain your perspective on the broader product. Critical perspectives very welcomed. Let’s chat when you’re free?: https://calendly.com/jordan-hvax/1-hour-meeting?month=2025-05
We are voting Option C: Wind down the whole initiative and return the ARB to the treasury because the current implementation no longer aligns with the original purpose of the approved proposal.
Event Horizon initially received a 7 million ARB delegation to experiment with a public-access voter pool aimed at broadening meaningful community participation in governance. However, the program has since pivoted to an AI-driven, agentic governance model—a fundamental shift that was not part of the original mandate and has not yet been ratified by the DAO.
While we support innovation and experimentation in governance, significant changes to the scope and intent of a treasury-backed initiative should be brought back to the DAO for explicit approval. Until such a revised proposal is submitted and evaluated by the community, we believe it is necessary and appropriate to wind down the current initiative and return the ARB to the treasury.
That said, we strongly recommend that the 7 million ARB not remain idle. Instead, the DAO should explore new ways to redeploy these tokens to continue supporting quorum and enhancing inclusive participation. Should Event Horizon wish to pursue delegation again under a new model, we would welcome a formal proposal clearly outlining their updated goals, structure, and evaluation metrics.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We are voting FOR the proposal and opting for reducing the delegation down to 100,000 ARB.
Being the ones who submitted the proposal in the first place, it’s obvious why we’re supportive of it.
We believe that the 100k ARB voting power will be meaningful enough for EH participants to feel the experience of participating in governance, it's at ~ the same level as some other active delegates in the DAO. After all, the pool votes as one, so even if other people are involved in the experiment, each participant is part of casting the vote for the whole pool.
At the same time, 100k ARB voting power does not make Event Horizon an attractive target for capture attacks. While the pool is meaningful, it is unlikely to sway the vote by itself. This allows us to focus on analyzing Event Horizon on its merit as a frontier builder of agentic governance, rather than its impact on vote outcomes.
We look forward to seeing how the Event Horizon team can support delegates in making better decisions and having more productive discussions about proposals with their agentic governance tooling. We believe this area has a lot of potential and, if proven valuable, could lead delegates to use these tools to support their own decisions, utilizing their own voting power.
but don't you think that a proposal to cancel something in this DAO...
should at least comply with the same thresholds as the proposals that were passed to implement it.
??
for example... do you think it should be possible to clawback GCP funding with an offchain vote that doesn't meet the 3% quorum and has a result of 51% For and 49% Against?
that doesn't seem right to me. like at all.
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 https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/agentic-governance-initiative-agi/29244 and what can be done with AI agents within Arbitrum.
We appreciate @Sinkas bringing this proposal forward and agree that the DAO should ratify Event Horizon’s pivot only after seeing hard evidence of how the experiment is working. To let delegates choose fairly between Options A, B, and C,
As @Euphoria noted, we would still like Event Horizon to deliver the bi-annual KPI report it promised last September, ideally before the Snapshot opens. A live Dune or Flipside dashboard would be just as useful, We appreciate Event Horizon’s update, but several essential data that we would like to learn more including:
Even if the published metrics would not materially sway this vote, they are still critical. Event Horizon originally received 7 million ARB so the community could test whether a “public-access voter pool” broadens meaningful participation. Without the promised data, the DAO loses a valuable opportunity to assess what the experiment accomplished, learn from it, and improve future initiatives.
Since Event Horizon has pivoted to an AGI-driven voting model, something never contemplated in the September 2024 mandate, their current role no longer aligns with what the DAO approved. In light of that fundamental change, clawing back the 7 million ARB delegation is reasonable. At the same time, as @JOJO noted, we must consider any knock-on effects this might have on the Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction proposal; thoughtful coordination is essential to avoid unintended governance disruptions.
if we strip event horizon of 6.9 or 7 millions of votes, we would effectively negate a good quarter, numerically wise, of the proposal above. Unless, of course, we find a way to redelegate these 7 millions to other entities but knowing that what happend to event horizon was more of an exception than a rule and that we never pursued this road for other delegates it feels unrealistic to think it might happen in a short timespan.
but If the DAO decides to pull back the full 7 million ARB from Event Horizon, we shouldn’t let those tokens sit idle. Instead, We suggest exploring a plan to put the remaining 7 million ARB, currently counted toward quorum back into active use while still reinforcing our quorum threshold.
(1) Revive “(Re)delegation Week” : Open applications to small delegates with a proven voting record, evaluate them through the standard DAO process, split the 7M ARB evenly among those who meet the participation benchmarks then splits the 7M ARB evenly among them and run it as a pilot program for a three-month before being reevaluated.
(2) Redistribute the ARB to the top Delegate Incentive Program performers from the last three months who each hold under 100k VP, giving them a multiplier boost for a three-month trial.
For Option 2, we reviewed the past DIP results and compiled a spreadsheet to identify eligible delegates; eight individuals meet the criteria under this approach.
Below is the list of top performers whose average voting power over the past three months is under 100 000 ARB and whose DIP score exceeds 65. (Table)
In either case, the 7 million ARB would remain staked and actively used for voting, ensuring they continue to support our recent quorum adjustment.
Here is about 150 votes (last voting on their platform)
I voted FOR wind down the whole thing and return the ARB to the treasury
I voted FOR wind down the whole thing and return the ARB to the treasury
Why do I want to exclude all VP and leave nothing? The thing is that Event Horizon is not really a delegate in the literal sense, since it does not have its own opinion, but is a proxy for the opinions of other delegates, who also have their own VP. Therefore, there is no great sense in leaving 100,000 votes
Camelot supports Option B to reduce the delegation to 100,000 ARB. At the time of the original proposal, Camelot voted against the initiative since we believed it was not bringing any meaningful value to the DAO. The subsequent change in scope from voter enfranchisement to AI-agentic governance provides, in our opinion, one more additional reason to reassess the delegated amount. However, we recognize the potential value in experimenting with agents in governance, with an amount that is limited to 100,000 ARB delegated versus the initial 7M used by not too many users. AI is increasingly pervasive across various sectors and will likely find relevant use cases in DAO operations and decision-making processes. This represents a legitimate area for controlled experimentation.
Due to this recognition and the fact that only a few months remain for this proposal’s original term, we suggest reducing the delegation to 100,000 ARB and analyzing the results in Q4. This approach allows Event Horizon to continue their agentic governance experimentation while significantly reducing the potential impact on DAO voting outcomes.
Is pretty clear at this point that they are taking a different road from where it started. And it’s ok, since 1 year in crypto is a lot of time and pivots and changes can happen.
Is pretty clear at this point that they are taking a different road from where it started. And it’s ok, since 1 year in crypto is a lot of time and pivots and changes can happen.
One thing I am very afraid of: option B and C might just be not realistically achievable right now.
With the current constitutional proposal to reduce quorum from 5 to 4.5%, we have the following:
if we strip event horizon of 6.9 or 7 millions of votes, we would effectively negate a good quarter, numerically wise, of the proposal above. Unless, of course, we find a way to redelegate these 7 millions to other entities but knowing that what happend to event horizon was more of an exception than a rule and that we never pursued this road for other delegates it feels unrealistic to think it might happen in a short timespan.
I’m personally slightly neutral/negative on agents for governance. I have had a few calls with a few teams working on these iterations, and I have always suggested incorporating a series of data sources and behaviours consistent with what @danielo recently posted in a twitter thread to even try to get something that is not a simple rubber stamp.
This to say, I don’t love the pivot of Event Horizon, but I am way more concerned about losing 7 millions in active voting power in the same moment in which we are just putting a bandage on the quorum looking for stronger long term solutions.
As it is today, I would vote in favor of option A, not specifically to support EH, but to ensure the 7 million arbs stay active in the pool of active voters.
Flipping my stance here, and voting in favour of reducing the voting power of Event Horizon to 100,000.
I have spent the last few days talking to several delegates, specifically
I have to say, I approached the problem from the wrong point of view. First, the major flaw: comingling the current quorum problem with this proposal. Yes, we are struggling more and more in reaching quorum; but it doesn't mean we need two mix two very different situations. At most, this proposal should be another reminder that we collectively need to put more effort to increase the delegated amount of ARB.
Second, the specificity of the request. At the time I voted in favor of EH because the idea of allowing smaller delegates and holders to access an higher pool of VP was potentially a good idea. What we have seen tho, and this came also from the chats I have had lately, is that this didn't specifically happen: the product didn't really get too much traction apparently. Now, we have this pivot toward agents. As stated above, is something I don't like. Is just too easy to fool agents, is just quite complex to plug in all the sources you would need for an agent to behave as you want. I don't believe that, as it is now, governance is ready to use efficiently AI. At the same time as other posted it would be shortsighted to not think that AI will have a pervasive role in our life and also in DAOs. For this reason, instead of totally disbanding the initiative, I am voting to keep running the experiment through agents with a lower amount of voting power, an amount that will not bear any tangible consequence on governance but will also allow us to gather some data for the few remaining months of the initiative.
After posting this proposal to the forum, we’ll post a Snapshot vote with the following options on May 29th
@Sinkas this proposal should only be valid if it has more than the 3% non-constitutional quorum right?
After posting this proposal to the forum, we’ll post a Snapshot vote with the following options on May 29th
@Sinkas this proposal should only be valid if it has more than the 3% non-constitutional quorum right?
this is a proposal to undo something that was approved with an offchain vote and then an onchain vote as well. So it should at least comply with the same thresholds as the proposals that were passed to implement it.
i think the lobbyfi vote should be made available in all offchain and onchain votes (excluding only security council maybe) at least just to count towards quorum. and I think it would be best if this criteria would be enforceable onchain, and immutable.
voting A - Do Nothing on this offchain vote because between the available voting options, I think Event Horizon should retain much more voting power than 100K ARB. This proposal should have been posted with several voting options for voting power, between 0 and 7M ARB. I would personally prefer for Event Horizon to retain 500K or even 1M ARB in voting power. As pointed out earlier, we should be delegating more ARB out of the treasury to actors that always cast a vote, not less ARB. Event Horizon is a worthwhile governance experiment, in many ways, and I think we should support it meaningfully, not with just 100K ARB.
I think this proposal, as a temp check, should include other voting options like 500k ARB and 1M ARB, so delegates can have more sensible options between 100k and 7M ARB.
I think this proposal, as a temp check, should include other voting options like 500k ARB and 1M ARB, so delegates can have more sensible options between 100k and 7M ARB.
We initially discussed internally whether we should suggest a specific amount to be delegated, provide multiple options, or leave the amount open-ended for determination through a DAO-wide conversation.
Ultimately, we decided to propose a specific amount, which we believe adequately reflects the experimental nature of Event Horizon's AGI, granting them meaningful voting power but not enough to impact the DAO significantly. On one hand, this amount is in the range of some of the active delegates, so EventHorizon participants can get some feeling of meaningfully participating in the DAO, but at the same time, it does not pose a significant risk to the outcomes if the agentic governance experiment experiences some unexpected issues.
This would require a separate proposal to be submitted to the DAO and undergo the governance process. This is outside the scope of the proposal, and since there's no such proposal currently, we will not alter the timeline or the proposed choices.
This to say, I don’t love the pivot of Event Horizon, but I am way more concerned about losing 7 millions in active voting power in the same moment in which we are just putting a bandage on the quorum looking for stronger long term solutions.
This is a valid concern, but we don't think it's reason enough not to submit the above proposal. After all, EventHorizon was never meant to “defend the quorum”; if we use it in that way, we’re adding risks and responsibilities to something that is experimental in nature already. Furthermore, the original proposal would end soon anyway, so even if we leave things as is now for the sake of easier quorum, we’re just shifting the problem a few months into the future. In our opinion, we should address quorum issues separately with different solutions and let EventHorizon experiment focus on what they’re passionate about - agentic governance.
We’d vote for B or C if this went to vote today, but as a more practical matter would also suggest holding off on one until there’s been a fuller discussion around agentic governance.
The purpose of our proposed reduction in voting power is precisely to provide the DAO with additional context on their Agentic Governance Initiative (AGI), without, however, empowering it with the full 7,000,000 ARB that we originally voted in favor of giving to Event Horizon.
With more context and time for things to unfold, delegates will be better able to assess the impact of AGI and determine how to proceed from there.
I support this proposal, but I think it is unclear where the 100,000 ARB came from, why exactly this amount?
Why is 100 k ARB the right experimental size versus intermediate options such as 500 k or 1 M?
There are no complicated calculations behind the amount proposed. It's an educated guesstimate of the appropriate voting power. With 100,000 ARB delegated from the treasury, Event Horizon would be placed approximately among the top 100 delegates, putting it among some familiar faces of Arbitrum DAO - so still being a relevant vote, but at the same time not posing significant risk.
(2) If 6.9 million ARB is returned, does the Foundation have a plan to redelegate some or all of it to other delegates?
We are not aware of any plans from the Foundation to propose a treasury delegation program.As such, if we end up decreasing EH’s delegation to 100k ARB, the 6.9M ARB tokens would be returned to the treasury (therefore reducing the votable supply), and wouldn’t be redelegated. As also mentioned in our response to Emmanuel above, to allocate the funds to a different initiative, a separate proposal would need to be submitted.
I support Option B here as well. Other delegates made good points that the initial proposal has changed and how Event Horizon operates. Although the change is significant, 100k ARB are still a good amount and makes sure that they are also not dropping out of the DIP.
If my understanding is correct, Event Horizon received 7M ARB to empower underrepresented community members and broaden human participation in governance.
We haven’t seen the program fulfill this premise so far. Moreover, we understand that the program pivoted towards AI-agentic voting, which was not in the scope of the original proposal.
If my understanding is correct, Event Horizon received 7M ARB to empower underrepresented community members and broaden human participation in governance.
We haven’t seen the program fulfill this premise so far. Moreover, we understand that the program pivoted towards AI-agentic voting, which was not in the scope of the original proposal.
Their pivot toward AI-agentic voting is a completely different direction — one that, in my view, deserves its own dedicated proposal and approval process.
I’m not against experimentation or AI in governance, but this kind of shift should go back through the DAO for explicit consent. The original delegation wasn’t meant to cover a fundamentally new approach.
For now, I will continue following the discussion and hear all sides, but I’m leaning toward option B, or even C.
@Sinkas this proposal should only be valid if it has more than the 3% non-constitutional quorum right?
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
When Event Horizon proposed the Voter Enfranchisement Pool, we were aligned with its core idea, to test an experimental approach to empowering community members who want to participate in governance but lack sufficient voting power.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
When Event Horizon proposed the Voter Enfranchisement Pool, we were aligned with its core idea, to test an experimental approach to empowering community members who want to participate in governance but lack sufficient voting power.
In fact, we have also guided some new users (who wanted to participate in governance) towards this path to help them understand how governance participation works and to feel more connected to the decision-making process.
Also, we know that there were discussions around the marketing efforts specifically for the Arbitrum community pool. One of the possible reasons we haven't seen the full impact reflected in participation metrics might be that the pool has not yet reached its ideal target audience effectively. It’s likely that with better outreach, more users would have leveraged this opportunity as originally intended.
While reviewing this proposal’s options on adjusting the delegation, we also revisited the Tally proposal passed last September, which committed to bi-annual reporting, including KPIs. So now it's more than 6 months, apart from the Event Horizon Updates Thread, we wanted to know if such a report has been made public and we have missed them, or if they are still forthcoming. @EventHorizonDAO @DonOfDAOs
Regarding the pivot towards agentic governance, we acknowledge that agentic governance is an emerging trend in DAO governance, and other ecosystems are actively investing in it. As a team, we are working on agentic governance development for Optimism ourselves.
That said, we want to emphasize that agentic governance is a separate and distinct initiative from the original Voter Enfranchisement Pool. While we appreciate Event Horizon’s work on agentic governance for Arbitrum, we believe this direction deserves its own dedicated proposal, as in AGI.
Thanks for this proposal.
As the AGI is an inititiave that will take time to produce a proposal for a vote, and because of the reasosn explained by the OP, I believe it makes sense to remove the VP now. The reasons were already metioned by other delegates, but my reasoning is that the AI approach does not incentive governance interaction by underrepresented actors.
I was initially skeptical about this initiative. This is due to the following:
So the original 7M ARB was meant to empower human voters, but shifting to AI agents is a fundamental change that was never formally approved by the DAO? EH's delegation has drifted from its original purpose, and this lack of alignment is concerning to me tbh.
I appreciate Event Horizon’s efforts, but using AI agents to vote on behalf of the DAO raises serious questions, particularly around transparency. We don’t have a clear understanding of how these agents make decisions, what values guide them, or where to see their voting record.
AranaDigital supports Option B—acknowledge the pivot to agentic governance and reduce the Event Horizon delegation from 7 million to 100 thousand ARB—because the shift from a human voter–enfranchisement pool to AI-driven voting is a fundamental change that requires renewed consent from the DAO. Reducing the stake minimizes governance risk while still allowing the team to continue testing agentic tools at a scale that cannot swing votes on its own. Before the Snapshot, we request clarity on three issues: (1) Will Event Horizon publish detailed agent logic, decision criteria, and a public dashboard of vote history so delegates can audit outcomes? (2) If 6.9 million ARB is returned, does the Foundation have a plan to redelegate some or all of it to other delegates? (3) Why is 100 k ARB the right experimental size versus intermediate options such as 500 k or 1 M?
I am have not been following with a ton of attention the event horizon evolution but I know that both you and @krst have instead had a keen eye toward it, questioning if it was still executing based on mandate, if it would still make sense in the optic of what was it voted for etc.
Is pretty clear at this point that they are taking a different road from where it started. And it's ok, since 1 year in crypto is a lot of time and pivots and changes can happen.
This is Brook @rooktc from TiD Research. We share the concerns raised about Event Horizon’s pivot to an agentic governance model. This approach is entirely new, untested, and wasn’t part of the original delegation proposal from September 2024, which aimed to empower human voters. Allocating 7M ARB to an unproven AI-driven experiment feels too risky, especially without transparency on the agents’ decision-making logic.
Addressing JoJo’s concern about the quorum impact, I agree that removing 7M ARB could theoretically negate a portion of the proposed quorum reduction by AF.
Thank you to L2BEAT for raising this proposal and the discussion about governance agentic experiments.
We agree that EH's shift warrants formal acknowledgment and re-evaluation of the delegated voting power.
Thank you to L2BEAT for raising this proposal and the discussion about governance agentic experiments.
We agree that EH's shift warrants formal acknowledgment and re-evaluation of the delegated voting power.
For these reasons, we are inclined to support Option B: acknowledge the pivot and reduce delegation to 100,000 ARB, maintaining alignment with the DAO's values of experimentation and inclusivity while minimizing exposure to potential unintended influence.
Hey @Jojo, one of the functions we’ve noted is our platform as a credibly neutral and open access source to support quorum.
That said, we’d also like to gain your perspective on the broader product. Critical perspectives very welcomed. Let’s chat when you’re free?: https://calendly.com/jordan-hvax/1-hour-meeting?month=2025-05
@Sinkas this proposal should only be valid if it has more than the 3% non-constitutional quorum right?
While this is a reasonable expectation, I don't think there is a formal requirement for it right now. I don't expect for this to be an issue with this vote, but for the future we might think about specifying formal quorum requirements for modifying and/or canceling initiatives.
Thanks for this proposal.
As the AGI is an inititiave that will take time to produce a proposal for a vote, and because of the reasosn explained by the OP, I believe it makes sense to remove the VP now. The reasons were already metioned by other delegates, but my reasoning is that the AI approach does not incentive governance interaction by underrepresented actors.
While I understand the reasons and think that it is something worth to explore, we are talking about a different approach, which needs to be evaluated and, if approved by the DAO, granted with a new VP.
I was initially skeptical about this initiative. This is due to the following:
I support this proposal, but I think it is unclear where the 100,000 ARB came from, why exactly this amount? We need a justification for the amount that DAO is ready to leave in Event Horizon if this option is accepted
So the original 7M ARB was meant to empower human voters, but shifting to AI agents is a fundamental change that was never formally approved by the DAO? EH's delegation has drifted from its original purpose, and this lack of alignment is concerning to me tbh.
I appreciate Event Horizon’s efforts, but using AI agents to vote on behalf of the DAO raises serious questions, particularly around transparency. We don’t have a clear understanding of how these agents make decisions, what values guide them, or where to see their voting record.
However, based on what I’ve seen over nearly a year in Arbitrum, EH has not caused any harm to the DAO with the 7M ARB delegation. And according to AI agent governance: Big challenges, big opportunities, agentic governance does offer certain advantages, such as fast response times and automated voting based on predefined criteria. I’m leaning toward option B, but maybe with a slightly higher delegation (like 500K or 1M ARB), along with:
Before pulling all the voting power or fully backing this new model, the DAO deserves clarity :)
I am have not been following with a ton of attention the event horizon evolution but I know that both you and @krst have instead had a keen eye toward it, questioning if it was still executing based on mandate, if it would still make sense in the optic of what was it voted for etc.
Is pretty clear at this point that they are taking a different road from where it started. And it's ok, since 1 year in crypto is a lot of time and pivots and changes can happen.
One thing I am very afraid of: option B and C might just be not realistically achievable right now.
With the current constitutional proposal to reduce quorum from 5 to 4.5%, we have the following:
if we strip event horizon of 6.9 or 7 millions of votes, we would effectively negate a good quarter, numerically wise, of the proposal above. Unless, of course, we find a way to redelegate these 7 millions to other entities but knowing that what happend to event horizon was more of an exception than a rule and that we never pursued this road for other delegates it feels unrealistic to think it might happen in a short timespan.
I'm personally slightly neutral/negative on agents for governance. I have had a few calls with a few teams working on these iterations, and I have always suggested incorporating a series of data sources and behaviours consistent with what @danielo recently posted in a twitter thread to even try to get something that is not a simple rubber stamp.
This to say, I don't love the pivot of Event Horizon, but I am way more concerned about losing 7 millions in active voting power in the same moment in which we are just putting a bandage on the quorum looking for stronger long term solutions.
As it is today, I would vote in favor of option A, not specifically to support EH, but to ensure the 7 million arbs stay active in the pool of active voters.
This is Brook @rooktc from TiD Research. We share the concerns raised about Event Horizon’s pivot to an agentic governance model. This approach is entirely new, untested, and wasn’t part of the original delegation proposal from September 2024, which aimed to empower human voters. Allocating 7M ARB to an unproven AI-driven experiment feels too risky, especially without transparency on the agents’ decision-making logic.
Addressing JoJo’s concern about the quorum impact, I agree that removing 7M ARB could theoretically negate a portion of the proposed quorum reduction by AF.
if we strip event horizon of 6.9 or 7 millions of votes, we would effectively negate a good quarter, numerically wise, of the proposal above. Unless, of course, we find a way to redelegate these 7 millions to other entities but knowing that what happend to event horizon was more of an exception than a rule and that we never pursued this road for other delegates it feels unrealistic to think it might happen in a short timespan.
However, looking at past constitutional proposal turnouts, this 7M ARB doesn’t seem to be the deciding factor for quorum in most cases. This suggests that broader voter participation, not Event Horizon’s delegation, is the key challenge.
Given these points, I support Option C. Maybe Event Horizon can submit a new proposal detailing the agentic governance mechanics and safeguards, for the DAO to evaluate. A smaller delegation (e.g., 500k–1M ARB) could be considered later for limited experimentation once we have more clarity.
The Event Horizon team fully supports this proposal as part of the broader transition toward deeper investment in AI infrastructure and Agentic governance within the Arbitrum ecosystem. Further, we support, and look forward to working alongside, L2Beat in the months ahead. We are more optimistic than ever about the future of Arbitrum DAO and AI/Agentic Governance.
The Event Horizon team fully supports this proposal as part of the broader transition toward deeper investment in AI infrastructure and Agentic governance within the Arbitrum ecosystem. Further, we support, and look forward to working alongside, L2Beat in the months ahead. We are more optimistic than ever about the future of Arbitrum DAO and AI/Agentic Governance.
I think this proposal, as a temp check, should include other voting options like 500k ARB and 1M ARB, so delegates can have more sensible options between 100k and 7M ARB.
We appreciate the community support for the experiment, @paulofonseca, and others who have reached out. We view this proposal as a transitional step as we begin spinning up the Agentic Governance Initiative.
During the final drafting of the AGI, the community will have a clear opportunity to revisit and recalibrate appropriate delegation sizing based upon greater context including EH responsibilities, the shape of the emerging AI architecture and solutions, and a long-term vision for the future of agentic governance co-created by the EH team and the broader community.
In the meantime, we defer to L2BEAT and the delegate community to determine what is fair and appropriate for this pre-transition phase.
I think this proposal makes sense. The pivot is very significant compared to the original mandate
I feel 100K ARB is way too big of a difference to the 7M ARB they currently have and jeopardizes the whole experiment.
I think this proposal, as a temp check, should include other voting options like 500k ARB and 1M ARB, so delegates can have more sensible options between 100k and 7M ARB.
I feel 100K ARB is way too big of a difference to the 7M ARB they currently have and jeopardizes the whole experiment.
I think this proposal, as a temp check, should include other voting options like 500k ARB and 1M ARB, so delegates can have more sensible options between 100k and 7M ARB.
After posting this proposal to the forum, we’ll post a Snapshot vote with the following options on May 19th.
We completely support Event Horizon’s pivot to agentic governance. With this being said, it is clear that agentic governance differs greatly from the original goal of voter enfranchisement and should be reconsidered by the DAO. As such, Michigan Blockchain supports Option C, delegating the 7,000,000 ARB back to the treasury.
However, we encourage EH to submit an additional proposal outlining a governance delegation targeted toward agentic governance. We are particularly curious about the effect of AI voting on overall voting trends –– does it represent the diverse viewpoints of DAO participants?
We completely support Event Horizon’s pivot to agentic governance. With this being said, it is clear that agentic governance differs greatly from the original goal of voter enfranchisement and should be reconsidered by the DAO. As such, Michigan Blockchain supports Option C, delegating the 7,000,000 ARB back to the treasury.
However, we encourage EH to submit an additional proposal outlining a governance delegation targeted toward agentic governance. We are particularly curious about the effect of AI voting on overall voting trends –– does it represent the diverse viewpoints of DAO participants?
To reiterate, we would love to see ARB once again delegated to EH with the purpose of leveraging agentic governance. Our only request is that a plan is brought before the DAO for consideration.
Michigan Blockchain; Jack Verrill; TG @JackVerrill
@Sinkas this proposal should only be valid if it has more than the 3% non-constitutional quorum right?
While this is a reasonable expectation, I don't think there is a formal requirement for it right now. I don't expect for this to be an issue with this vote, but for the future we might think about specifying formal quorum requirements for modifying and/or canceling initiatives.
Thanks for this proposal.
As the AGI is an inititiave that will take time to produce a proposal for a vote, and because of the reasosn explained by the OP, I believe it makes sense to remove the VP now. The reasons were already metioned by other delegates, but my reasoning is that the AI approach does not incentive governance interaction by underrepresented actors.
While I understand the reasons and think that it is something worth to explore, we are talking about a different approach, which needs to be evaluated and, if approved by the DAO, granted with a new VP.
I was initially skeptical about this initiative. This is due to the following:
I support this proposal, but I think it is unclear where the 100,000 ARB came from, why exactly this amount? We need a justification for the amount that DAO is ready to leave in Event Horizon if this option is accepted
So the original 7M ARB was meant to empower human voters, but shifting to AI agents is a fundamental change that was never formally approved by the DAO? EH's delegation has drifted from its original purpose, and this lack of alignment is concerning to me tbh.
I appreciate Event Horizon’s efforts, but using AI agents to vote on behalf of the DAO raises serious questions, particularly around transparency. We don’t have a clear understanding of how these agents make decisions, what values guide them, or where to see their voting record.
However, based on what I’ve seen over nearly a year in Arbitrum, EH has not caused any harm to the DAO with the 7M ARB delegation. And according to AI agent governance: Big challenges, big opportunities, agentic governance does offer certain advantages, such as fast response times and automated voting based on predefined criteria. I’m leaning toward option B, but maybe with a slightly higher delegation (like 500K or 1M ARB), along with:
Before pulling all the voting power or fully backing this new model, the DAO deserves clarity :)
I am have not been following with a ton of attention the event horizon evolution but I know that both you and @krst have instead had a keen eye toward it, questioning if it was still executing based on mandate, if it would still make sense in the optic of what was it voted for etc.
Is pretty clear at this point that they are taking a different road from where it started. And it's ok, since 1 year in crypto is a lot of time and pivots and changes can happen.
One thing I am very afraid of: option B and C might just be not realistically achievable right now.
With the current constitutional proposal to reduce quorum from 5 to 4.5%, we have the following:
if we strip event horizon of 6.9 or 7 millions of votes, we would effectively negate a good quarter, numerically wise, of the proposal above. Unless, of course, we find a way to redelegate these 7 millions to other entities but knowing that what happend to event horizon was more of an exception than a rule and that we never pursued this road for other delegates it feels unrealistic to think it might happen in a short timespan.
I'm personally slightly neutral/negative on agents for governance. I have had a few calls with a few teams working on these iterations, and I have always suggested incorporating a series of data sources and behaviours consistent with what @danielo recently posted in a twitter thread to even try to get something that is not a simple rubber stamp.
This to say, I don't love the pivot of Event Horizon, but I am way more concerned about losing 7 millions in active voting power in the same moment in which we are just putting a bandage on the quorum looking for stronger long term solutions.
As it is today, I would vote in favor of option A, not specifically to support EH, but to ensure the 7 million arbs stay active in the pool of active voters.
This is Brook @rooktc from TiD Research. We share the concerns raised about Event Horizon’s pivot to an agentic governance model. This approach is entirely new, untested, and wasn’t part of the original delegation proposal from September 2024, which aimed to empower human voters. Allocating 7M ARB to an unproven AI-driven experiment feels too risky, especially without transparency on the agents’ decision-making logic.
Addressing JoJo’s concern about the quorum impact, I agree that removing 7M ARB could theoretically negate a portion of the proposed quorum reduction by AF.
if we strip event horizon of 6.9 or 7 millions of votes, we would effectively negate a good quarter, numerically wise, of the proposal above. Unless, of course, we find a way to redelegate these 7 millions to other entities but knowing that what happend to event horizon was more of an exception than a rule and that we never pursued this road for other delegates it feels unrealistic to think it might happen in a short timespan.
However, looking at past constitutional proposal turnouts, this 7M ARB doesn’t seem to be the deciding factor for quorum in most cases. This suggests that broader voter participation, not Event Horizon’s delegation, is the key challenge.
Given these points, I support Option C. Maybe Event Horizon can submit a new proposal detailing the agentic governance mechanics and safeguards, for the DAO to evaluate. A smaller delegation (e.g., 500k–1M ARB) could be considered later for limited experimentation once we have more clarity.
The Event Horizon team fully supports this proposal as part of the broader transition toward deeper investment in AI infrastructure and Agentic governance within the Arbitrum ecosystem. Further, we support, and look forward to working alongside, L2Beat in the months ahead. We are more optimistic than ever about the future of Arbitrum DAO and AI/Agentic Governance.
The Event Horizon team fully supports this proposal as part of the broader transition toward deeper investment in AI infrastructure and Agentic governance within the Arbitrum ecosystem. Further, we support, and look forward to working alongside, L2Beat in the months ahead. We are more optimistic than ever about the future of Arbitrum DAO and AI/Agentic Governance.
I think this proposal, as a temp check, should include other voting options like 500k ARB and 1M ARB, so delegates can have more sensible options between 100k and 7M ARB.
We appreciate the community support for the experiment, @paulofonseca, and others who have reached out. We view this proposal as a transitional step as we begin spinning up the Agentic Governance Initiative.
During the final drafting of the AGI, the community will have a clear opportunity to revisit and recalibrate appropriate delegation sizing based upon greater context including EH responsibilities, the shape of the emerging AI architecture and solutions, and a long-term vision for the future of agentic governance co-created by the EH team and the broader community.
In the meantime, we defer to L2BEAT and the delegate community to determine what is fair and appropriate for this pre-transition phase.
I think this proposal makes sense. The pivot is very significant compared to the original mandate
I feel 100K ARB is way too big of a difference to the 7M ARB they currently have and jeopardizes the whole experiment.
I think this proposal, as a temp check, should include other voting options like 500k ARB and 1M ARB, so delegates can have more sensible options between 100k and 7M ARB.
I feel 100K ARB is way too big of a difference to the 7M ARB they currently have and jeopardizes the whole experiment.
I think this proposal, as a temp check, should include other voting options like 500k ARB and 1M ARB, so delegates can have more sensible options between 100k and 7M ARB.
After posting this proposal to the forum, we’ll post a Snapshot vote with the following options on May 19th.
We completely support Event Horizon’s pivot to agentic governance. With this being said, it is clear that agentic governance differs greatly from the original goal of voter enfranchisement and should be reconsidered by the DAO. As such, Michigan Blockchain supports Option C, delegating the 7,000,000 ARB back to the treasury.
However, we encourage EH to submit an additional proposal outlining a governance delegation targeted toward agentic governance. We are particularly curious about the effect of AI voting on overall voting trends –– does it represent the diverse viewpoints of DAO participants?
We completely support Event Horizon’s pivot to agentic governance. With this being said, it is clear that agentic governance differs greatly from the original goal of voter enfranchisement and should be reconsidered by the DAO. As such, Michigan Blockchain supports Option C, delegating the 7,000,000 ARB back to the treasury.
However, we encourage EH to submit an additional proposal outlining a governance delegation targeted toward agentic governance. We are particularly curious about the effect of AI voting on overall voting trends –– does it represent the diverse viewpoints of DAO participants?
To reiterate, we would love to see ARB once again delegated to EH with the purpose of leveraging agentic governance. Our only request is that a plan is brought before the DAO for consideration.
Michigan Blockchain; Jack Verrill; TG @JackVerrill
