Co-Creation Cycles Living Doc
This document is the canonical resource for how cocreation cycles work. It replaces the previous version and has been updated most recently on Nov 5th, 2025.
Evolving the Co-Creation Cycle Process
Hey everyone,
We wanted to take a moment to share some important updates to the Co-Creation Cycle Process and explain what we’ve learned since first introducing it.
When we began implementing the original process, it quickly became clear that a few things could be improved. Some parts worked beautifully, they encouraged collaboration and transparency, but others were too rigid or sequential for the way community discussion actually unfolds. This post explains what we’ve changed and why.
From Sequential “Cycles” to Modular “Cycles”
Originally, we imagined the process as a sequence of numbered cycles (Cycle 0, Cycle 1, Cycle 2, etc.), each serving a distinct stage in the evolution of a document or proposal.
In practice, this linear structure was limiting. Every initiative has different needs. Sometimes the community needs open discussion; other times we need rigorous, data-driven validation. So we’re moving to a modular cycle system, where each module can be used whenever it’s needed.
Our new design will still use the term “cycle” meaning the period in which a module is run (usually a 2 week sprint, but not always). For example, if a project has a small amount of contention, but continues to get quality impactful feedback, it may run 3 open feedback cycles before a ratification cycle.
Example Pathways for a Cocreation Cycle Process
Happy Path Example
This is an example of a proposal for a policy that is not too high stakes, easy to reverse, and has general agreement. A primary drafter begins work and posts to the forum to signal the start of “cycle 1”.
| Cycle # | Module | How to Move Forward |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Initial Drafting | This is the time before an initial draft is posted. |
| 1 | Open Feedback | This cycle receives quality feedback, low contention. Therefore, it moves to a second open feedback cycle |
| 2 | Open Feedback | The sensing proposal shows high alignment. The updated version is posted and it is announced that it is being posted for ratification next cycle. |
| 3 | Ratification | The proposal passes! This becomes version 1.0.0 |
High Contention Example
In this example, we look at one arbitrary way a contentious proposal to change an economic parameter might get through the process.
| Cycle # | Module | How to Move Forward |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Initial Drafting | This is the time before an initial draft is posted. |
| 1 | Open Feedback | Feedback shows anger and clear conflicts with the proposed draft. The drafter updates to the best of their ability. |
| 2 | Open Feedback | The sensing proposal is completely split and doesn’t even reach quorum! This isn’t ready for ratification. The facilitator recommends a unique process to better understand the issues. |
| 3 | Data Enhanced | Direct outreach to stakeholders and surveys take extra time and this module will need to run for two sprints before an updated version is ready. |
| 3b | Data Enhanced | Aggregation of the survey data collected and in depth analysis provides some insights to help the community better understand the tradeoffs. Announces moving to an open feedback module for next cycle. |
| 5 | Open Feedback | The sensing proposal shows less contention. Drafter doesn’t think it will get less contentious and a decision needs to be made. Final tweeks made & moves to a Ratification cycle. |
| 6 | Ratification Cycle | The vote hits quorum and passes. Because of the work put in, those who disagreed at least feel heard and understand why the decision was made. Legitimacy is upheld. |
A Menu of Cocreation Cycle Modules
Here’s are the four modules of a cocreation cycle:
The Initial Drafting Module
This replaces what used to be “Cycle 0.”
It always begins with a primary drafter and a facilitator who collaborate to produce an initial draft.
The goal is to create a strong, structured version that can serve as the input for the first community-wide feedback stage.
Selecting the Drafter and Facilitator
We do not currently have an agreed upon method for selecting the primary drafter and facilitator.
How It Happens Now
Hack Humanity is holding both roles for Code of Conduct, Constitution & Charters, and Mission Vision & Values. Soon, we will begin testing how it works with community contributors in these roles beginning with drafting. Cycle**.
They are funded and delegated authority by NEAR Foundation. Part of progressive decentralization is changing this over time.
Here is a view of how the community can witness action in the commitment to decentralize.
Steps To Decentralize
First, Hack Humanity will attempt facilitating cycles with a community drafter.
Building on that, Hack Humanity will attempt to oversee a full community-driven process including the facilitation.
Future Suggestions
Eventually, there should be a mechanism and funding voted into place to kickstart this process.
It should include a way to quickly select the best potential drafter and facilitator, hold them accountable, and pay them for results.
The Open Feedback Module
This replaces what used to be “Cycle 1.”
It’s a 10-day open feedback period where anyone can contribute thoughts, concerns, and suggestions.
The output of this module is the community draft.
Open feedback on the forum and proactive participation from the community is generally not respresentative. Instead, we use the Key Stakeholder Groups & Interest “Living Document” to generate AI reviews.
Each Open Feedback Cycle ends with:
- An Open Feedback Cycle Report
- An updated version (v0.x+1.0)
- An announcement of next steps (defaults to another Open Feedback Cycle)
An Open Feedback Module can be repeated multiple times, and the default is that it ALWAYS is repeated unless announced otherwise.
Each new round allows for:
- Reducing polarization and finding middle ground
- Clarifying reasoning behind decisions
- Building understanding across perspectives
By focusing on dialogue before decision, we can surface compromises and identify the “why” behind different positions. Rather than divide the community, this helps us reach the outcome that’s both most legitimate and least polarizing.
Repeating the Open Feedback Cycle
At the end of the first Open Feedback Cycle, the output draft is always routed into a second Open Feedback Cycle.
This ensures that:
- Everyone has time to review how their feedback was applied
- Remaining disagreements or unclear points can surface
- The community can see visible progress toward alignment
One of the key updates to the new modular process is a clearer pathway from open community deliberation to formal ratification.
Every initiative will now run at least two consecutive Open Feedback Modules before any ratification attempt. After the first one, all following Open Feedback Cycles will include a sensing proposal on day 3 to test the updated version’s support.
Utilizing Sensing Proposals
During the second Open Feedback Cycle, on Day 3, a sensing proposal will be posted.
This is not a vote — it’s an alignment check.
Its purpose is to gauge whether the community feels the draft is nearly ready for ratification, or whether more deliberation is needed.
If the sensing shows high alignment (broad support and minimal unresolved contention), then that same Open Feedback Cycle will **convert into a Ratification
Reporting & Transparency
Each Open Feedback Module will now end with a cycle report, generated using structured inputs:
- The input artifact (draft version)
- The updated output draft
- The feedback log
- The key stakeholder group review
The report will transparently show:
- All changes made between versions
- How each feedback item was addressed (adopted, modified, deferred, or not adopted)
- AI-assisted analysis of alignment across stakeholder perspectives
This ensures every iteration is documented, learnings are preserved, and progress remains accountable.
Versioning Guidelines
Versioning Convention
Document versions follow a three-part semantic structure to reflect both the ratification stage and the review cycle.
| Format | Meaning |
|---|---|
| vX.Y.Z | X = Ratification level Y = Feedback cycle or revision phase Z = Draft iteration within that cycle |
Version Stages Explained
| Version | Description |
|---|---|
| v1.0.0 | A fully ratified version formally approved by governance or core stewards. |
| v0.0.1 | The initial draft before Cycle 1 begins — a baseline document with minimal community feedback if any. |
| v0.1.0 | First cycle starting — initial drafting cycle output ready to begin receiving community feedback. |
| v0.2.1 | Second cycle, first draft — marks the first intra-cycle draft of the second cycle. |
| v0.2.4 | Second cycle, fourth draft — multiple revisions within the same feedback cycle. |
| v2.4.1 | Second ratified version, in the fourth cycle of updates to that version, first intra-cycle draft within that cycle. |
Summary:
- The first digit (X) = ratification level.
- The second digit (Y) = feedback or update cycle.
- The third digit (Z) = draft number within that cycle.
This approach keeps the process transparent and traceable — readers can instantly see whether a document is a draft, in an active feedback cycle, or formally ratified.
The Data Enhanced Module
This module is where deeper validation happens.
It’s resource-intensive and should only be used when:
- Contention remains unresolved after multiple Open Feedback Cycles, or
- There is existential worry from a group of stakeholders rather than preferential.
A Data Enhanced Module needs to be customized to the situation and might involve:
- Statistical methods or structured surveys
- Targeted outreach to under-represented stakeholder groups
- Expert or AI-assisted reviews of competing arguments
This step ensures that when we do finalize something, it’s defensible, balanced, and informed by diverse perspectives.
The Ratification Module
Once converted, the focus shifts slightly:
- The cycle begins with posting the updated version from the forum to the onchain process.
- The open feedback period is replaced by a 7 day constitutionally mandated deliberation period without any changes made to the proposal. continues as normal, incorporating additional suggestions and fine-tuning.
- Instead of posting it as an “output draft” for another round, the process proceeds to a binding ratification vote.
Special Case for High Alignment Proposals
A sensing vote showing high alignment could result in no changes and the onchain process and 7 day deliberation period could begin on day 7 of the Open Feedback Cycle.
This means that the same community-driven cycle that gathers and refines feedback can also conclude the process.
In cases where the community shows significant contention, the draft simply proceeds through the Open Feedback Cycle process instead of ratification. This keeps the process flexible, responsive, and focused on building shared understanding rather than forcing premature decisions.
Lessons Learned
Why We’re Moving Away from Early Voting
One of the biggest insights so far is that voting too early can fracture a community.
When an issue is put to a vote before enough shared understanding is built, the result tends to split people into sides with half feeling unheard.
Instead, repeated open feedback and structured deliberation give everyone time to learn from each other, explore trade-offs, and refine ideas. Only once there’s clear alignment or well-documented dissent does it make sense to move into any formal defensibility or decision phase.
Taking Time to Save Time
Many DAOs consider an idea, like treasury management, then they discuss for months before even beginning a serious proposal. Sometimes the community gets impatient and 5 different proposal are posted at once without a way to take the best bits and remove the highly polarizing parts.
This co-creation cycle process allows for:
- work to get started quickly
- preference for iterative improvement over delays for perfection
- the community can follow the thought process in proposal drafting
- an auditable trail of decisions in getting to a final proposal
- an ability to combine best features and lose polarizing ones
Sure, a contentious proposal could take months to get through 6 or more 2 week cycles. But let’s be honest. We’ve all seen DAO proposals that are desired take much longer than that without providing any expectation to when or how the drafting will occur.
Rethinking Stakeholder Participation
Another big learning is that it’s not practical to get feedback from every key stakeholder group on every document.
Some groups like large validators, protocol developers, or major investors simply don’t have the bandwidth to weigh in on items like the Code of Conduct or committee charters.
That’s okay. The Open Feedback Module is designed to center those who do care deeply about governance, coordination, and community health. Their participation forms the foundation of each draft.
To still reflect the broader ecosystem, we’re introducing a new companion document:
The “Key Stakeholder Groups & Interests” Living Document
This living document will:
- Outline the priorities, risks, and values of each key stakeholder group
- Be open for ongoing public feedback on the forum
- Be continuously updated and validated
- Serve as a standing input to every cycle’s review report
That way, even if a stakeholder group doesn’t comment in a given cycle, their perspectives are still represented and can be compared against the evolving community consensus.
Closing Thoughts
This evolution of the cocreation cycle process refines it through real-world experience.
By making the process modular, iterative, and stakeholder-aware, we’re living the NEAR values of pragmatic adaptability.
We’re grateful to everyone who has participated so far, offered feedback, or shared frustrations that helped us learn faster.
This is truly a co-created process as the Co-creation Cycle Process and the Key Stakeholder Groups & Interests are both “living documents” that are always open to feedback and continually improving.
We’ll continue improving it together and commit to decentralizing the current bottlenecks.