Constitution Structural Alignment Discussion
This post summarizes the core constitutional design questions that have emerged from community feedback, charter updates, and deliberation on the interim Constitution (v0.1.2) during open feedback cycle 1.
Introduction
Recognizing that the Constitution is more than a procedural document this post surfaces the structural, procedural, and cultural questions for the long term viability of the DAO and to consider when setting up initial conditions well.
The purpose of this phase is not to edit individual clauses, but to align on the constitutional architecture of the House of Stake:
- What should be codified at the highest level
- What belongs in subordinate charters, and
- How progressive decentralization should actually work in practice.
Community participation is guiding the formation of a ratification-ready draft. This co-creation process is shaping the checks, powers, and relationships between the Foundation, the veNEAR holders, the Screening Committee, and the wider veNEAR community.
How to Participate in Co-Creation
- Respond to the Three Key Questions below, these define the core trade-offs in the new governance model.
- Review the Discussion Topics (shared in the post below) and share your reflections or alternative models.
- Focus on structure, legitimacy, and accountability, not wordsmithing. Your insights will guide the next constitutional iteration.
Three Key Questions for the Community
-
Structured Funding vs Open Treasury
DAOs must decide to either open up their full treasury to direct proposals or define a structure for scoping budget. Many are considering putting their treasury to work using yield to fund long-term DAO success. An open treasury would keep the full treasury available for proposals at any time, but lessen the yield potential. A hybrid model might automatically allocate yield into “accounts” each with their own method for further allocation creating a system for defining budgets. Is having all funds actively available for proposals preferred even over having a system for sustainably allocating funding? -
Structured Alignment Operationalization vs Independent Proposer Defined Goals
The Screening Committee (and a potential future agent) are designed to filter proposals to prevent spam onchain, but also for “alignment”. The vagueness of this concept can lead to mismatched expectations. Operationalizing a plan to set measurable outcome goals such that alignment and accountability can be defined in relation to an agreed upon definition is one model for providing more clearly defined alignment. Is having a goal setting process that helps align activities and hold people accountable preferred even over providing freedom to propose any possible way of using resources? -
Structured Decision Routing vs Maximized Accessibility
How we balance accessibility to which decisions is a key component of democratic systems. Tradeoffs make this difficult. Expertise vs Accessibility. Speed vs Consistency. Oversight vs Prevention. Poorly designed governance creates voter fatigue and produces inferior outcomes. By embracing structured governance for workstreams, a DAO can empower multiple decision-making methods. The mechanisms that best allocate funds for R&D before a technical or economic parameter change are different from compensating devs for building open source infrastructure or hiring service providers. Is providing accesibility to voters to participate in every decision preferred even over having purpose fit mechanisms for each decision type?
Discussion Topics
1. Progressive Decentralization & Transition Path
Discussion Question: Should the Constitution define a progressive decentralization roadmap with milestone-based triggers for transferring powers from the NEAR Foundation to the community?
Change magnitude: High
Impact on governance: Very High
Pros: Enables legitimacy and safety; ensures readiness before autonomy.
Cons: Risk of perceived delay or frustration if milestones move slower than expectations.
Callout: The current expiration clause creates a “hard stop” in May 2026. Many contributors suggested shifting to milestone-based transitions tied to readiness and legitimacy, instead of a fixed handover date.
Hack Humanity Suggestion
It may be beneficial to consider anchoring decentralization around milestone-based transitions rather than fixed dates.
This approach aligns with the Governance Transition Program already in motion and could make delegation of authority safer, reversible, and progressively earned.
Defining these stages clearly in the Constitution might help the community build confidence while avoiding abrupt or existential shifts in power.
2. Clarifying the HoS Mandate
Discussion Question: Should the Constitution more clearly define the boundaries of House of Stake authority — separating economic, technical, and ecosystem mandates — or leave this flexibility to policy-level charters?
Change magnitude: High
Impact on governance: High
Pros: Clarifies HoS boundaries and prevents overreach.
Cons: Too much specificity could limit adaptation over time.
Callout: Feedback emphasized the need to clarify what the HoS governs versus what remains under other entities, and to add explicit references to HoS reward mechanisms and economic parameters.
Hack Humanity Suggestion
The community could explore clarifying the boundaries of House of Stake authority as decentralization advances.
Embedding core mandates — such as specific economic parameters and technical governance — within the Constitution may support transparency and shared understanding, while Mission, Vision, and Values provides guiding principles.
Defining a ratified process for measuring success through outcome goals may also help ensure decisions remain accountable to community intent.
3. Screening Committee Authority and Accountability
Discussion Question: Should the Constitution limit the Screening Committee’s power to block proposals and instead formalize it as a routing and transparency body with Ombudsman oversight?
Change magnitude: Very High
Impact on governance: Very High
Pros: Prevents centralization and improves checks and balances.
Cons: May reduce flexibility during early stabilization phases.
Callout: Concerns were raised about the committee’s ability to halt key proposals. The new charter reframes it as “routers, not gatekeepers,” with independent oversight from the Ombudsman.
Hack Humanity Suggestion
As the Screening Committee continues to evolve, it might be valuable to transition its role from filtering to routing and transparency over time.
This shift could maintain necessary structure during the early “city planning” phase while aligning with the long-term goal of open, distributed decision-making.
Building in Ombudsman oversight and exploring AI-assisted review systems may further enhance fairness and procedural integrity.
4. Steward and Ombudsman Roles
Discussion Question: Should the Constitution formally establish the Ombudsman as a constitutional office empowered to investigate misconduct and enforce transparency across all governance bodies?
Change magnitude: Medium
Impact on governance: High
Pros: Adds a neutral accountability layer; ensures institutional balance.
Cons: Adds administrative overhead if not clearly scoped.
Callout: The Ombudsman already acts as oversight in the Screening Charter; constitutional recognition would strengthen independence and continuity.
Hack Humanity Suggestion
The Constitution could benefit from formally recognizing the an Ombudsman role as an institutional safeguard, ensuring that no single body operates unchecked (may be part of Head of Governance role).
Defining its remit at a high level — oversight, transparency, and procedural review — may provide the right balance of authority and flexibility.
Establishing this office as one leg of a checks-and-balances triad with a Steward Council and or Endorsed Delegates may help preserve neutrality and trust over time.
5. Endorsed Delegate Representation Model
Discussion Question: Should the Constitution embed stakeholder-based representation, where each key stakeholder group elects one or more Endorsed Delegates?
Change magnitude: High
Impact on governance: High
Pros: Improves representation quality and legitimacy.
Cons: May add complexity or imbalance if some stakeholder groups are underrepresented.
Callout: The updated Endorsed Delegate Charter defines representation around stakeholder groups rather than individuals, signalling a shift toward proportional legitimacy.
Hack Humanity Suggestion
The community may wish to progress toward a stakeholder-based model of representation, where each key ecosystem group elects its own delegates.
A hybrid composition (e.g., some stakeholder-specific and some open delegates) could allow a smoother transition and broader participation.
It might be helpful to define official stakeholder categories and proportional mix in the Constitution, while leaving implementation and election mechanics to the Endorsed Delegate Charter.
6. Terms, Elections & Rotation
Discussion Question: Should delegate and committee term limits be defined in the Constitution (e.g., fixed one-year terms with a maximum of three renewals), or left to individual charters to set?
Change magnitude: Medium
Impact on governance: Medium
Pros: Promotes turnover and prevents entrenchment.
Cons: Reduces flexibility if institutional maturity varies.
Callout: Feedback supported clear term definitions and re-election eligibility but warned against over-specifying details at the constitutional level.
Hack Humanity Suggestion
Introducing clear constitutional term limits for elected and appointed roles could reinforce accountability and promote regular renewal of leadership.
This would be easier to implement earlier in the governance lifecycle, before incumbency becomes entrenched.
A consistent rotation structure may help distribute influence more evenly and maintain community engagement.
7. Proposal and Voting Lifecycle
Discussion Question: Should the Constitution extend minimum deliberation times (e.g., from 7 days to 14) and define consistent voting cadences with exceptions for expedited decisions?
Change magnitude: Medium
Impact on governance: Medium
Pros: Improves deliberation quality and fairness.
Cons: Could slow urgent operations.
Callout: Community workshops recommended doubling deliberation periods and standardizing cycles to make participation more accessible.
Hack Humanity Suggestion
Embedding the proposal lifecycle and version control principles directly in the Constitution could help align processes across workstreams and prevent ambiguity.
Connecting this to a ratified Proposal Policy and an integrated proposal dashboard might simplify participation and reduce friction for voters.
A general principle could be to maintain longer deliberation periods for complex decisions and meta-governance, while reserving expedited action for security or operational emergencies — ideally through existing bodies such as the Security Council or workstreams with delegated authority to act quickly.
At the meta-governance level, it may be most efficient to focus votes on elections, parameter changes, and budget approvals, leaving procedural decisions to subDAO or workstream governance.
8. Charter Amendment Hierarchy
Discussion Question: Which types of changes should require a community-wide vote versus those that can be decided internally by committees or councils?
Change magnitude: Medium
Impact on governance: Very High
Pros: Protects against unchecked power shifts.
Cons: Increases voting load for minor operational updates.
Callout: The Constitution defines three amendment tiers but lacks clarity on how conflicts between charters are resolved. Empowering an Ombudsman or a Steward Council to arbitrate could provide balance.
Hack Humanity Suggestion
The community might consider reaffirming that core constitutional articles and institutional powers require community ratification, while procedural updates can be amended internally.
A hybrid model could balance agility and accountability allowing teams to make low-stakes updates while maintaining a community right of review for higher-impact changes.
Clearly linking all charters and policy to the Constitution as the supreme document could further strengthen consistency and reduce confusion.
9. Conflict of Interest & Integrity Policy
Discussion Question: Should the Constitution include a detailed Conflict of Interest Policy as a binding annex, outlining definitions, disclosure rules, and enforcement mechanisms?
Change magnitude: Medium
Impact on governance: High
Pros: Reinforces transparency and professionalism.
Cons: Adds administrative complexity.
Callout: Current provisions are broad; contributors want a defined policy applicable to all committees and delegates.
Hack Humanity Suggestion
Rather than embedding all details in the Constitution, a dedicated subordinate policy could be developed to address conflicts of interest.
A constitutional reference or annex could outline core principles such as disclosure, transparency, and fairness while allowing operational updates over time.
The policy might seek to balance inclusivity with legitimacy: ensuring that those with deep ecosystem investments can still participate, provided their affiliations are openly disclosed, to recognize the reality of how conflicts of interest arise and when they are of material importance.
10. Treasury & Financial Stewardship
Discussion Question: Should the Constitution require that treasury control transition on-chain once compliance, audit, and risk criteria are met?
Change magnitude: High
Impact on governance: High
Pros: Strengthens decentralization and accountability.
Cons: Premature automation could create risk without proper readiness.
Callout: Participants favored a phased approach mandating transparency and readiness checkpoints before fully automated on-chain execution.
Hack Humanity Suggestion
It may be prudent to establish in the Constitution that the Treasury will ultimately operate on-chain, ensuring transparency and resistance to capture.
Defining clear technical and legal readiness milestones could serve as a mutual assurance between the Foundation and community: once readiness is achieved, authority transfers automatically and visibly.
This “readiness-triggered” model could strengthen trust and align incentives between both sides of governance.
11. Dispute Resolution and Accessibility
Discussion Question: Should the Constitution require accessible translations, transparent archives, and clear pathways for both on-chain and off-chain dispute resolution?
Change magnitude: Low
Impact on governance: Medium
Pros: Increases inclusivity and fairness.
Cons: Adds coordination costs and maintenance overhead.
Callout: Feedback emphasized accessibility, multilingual transparency, and defining whether arbitration panels are elected or appointed.
Hack Humanity Suggestion
A separate annex policy on disputes and appeals may help operationalize this area without overcomplicating the Constitution.
Maintaining a single official language (English) for binding text could reduce interpretive risk, while supporting community-driven translation efforts for accessibility.
Dispute handling might prioritize off-chain processes first, escalating to on-chain resolution only when needed, with AI-assisted tools used for transparency and triage.
Accessibility, while essential for inclusivity, may be best addressed through workstream funding and community practices rather than constitutional guarantees at this stage.
Next Steps
Community members are encouraged to comment directly on each discussion point. We encourage you to raise alternative models that better meet both efficiency and legitimacy goals.
The goal of this discussion thread is not to finalize policy wording but to surface clear preferences to direct further drafting of the Constitution.
The next Open Feedback Cycle will be extended to allow for the policy and charters to determine what needs to be constitutional during iteration 9 (nov 4-18). Then, the cycle 2 for the constitution will produce an output draft considering all feedback gathered during iteration 10.
First session: Mon 10 Nov at 12:00–13:30 UTC
End-of-Year Goals for the Assembly Phase