I will be voting no, not because I disagree with Horizon as an initiative, but because I believe the proposal in its current form risks dividing the DAO when it should be a unifying step forward.
The edits made: no Horizon token, a fair 50/50 revenue split, and GHO integration, are real improvements. Still, as bgdlabs and ACI said, there are unresolved concerns around governance structure, versioning, and process.
I understand that Horizon timely launch is important from business perspective. But the concerns raised are not minor detail. And as EzR3aL said, “given that SP have a different job and thus view on this proposal, it’s only fair to raise these concerns/questions.”
So my vote is not meant as opposition to Horizon, but as a call for reunification: to clarify roles, publish a roadmap for upgrades, and improve coordination before activation. This could be done in a timely manner (perhaps weeks?)
Horizon should be a win win, and after having agreed on MAJOR concessions, the final mile of alignment would have made the DAO stronger.
Edit: I removed the part on delegation after learning that my voting power comes from other token holders, not directly from BGD Labs or ACI.