House Of Stake Foundation- Conflict of Interest Policy (v1.0 Draft)

House of Stake
1
Version Control
Version Date Description of Change / Action Notes / Feedback Cycle Duration
v0.1 (Initial Draft) June 25, 2025 Draft version prepared and circulated internally for preliminary review. Baseline document to kick off the discussion in the HoS telegram group
v0.2 (Forum Post) July 1, 2025 The policy draft was formally posted to the governance forum for community review and feedback. Beginning of the public feedback period.
v0.3 (Public Feedback collected) Aug 30, 2025 End of the feedback cycle: document closed to reflect stakeholder input. Total feedback cycle: 60 days.
  • All iterations are maintained for transparency and auditability.
  • The feedback cycle duration, counted from the initial forum posting (July 1) to the final revision date (August 30), totaled 60 days.
  • Subsequent updates will be logged with version increments (v1.0, v1.1, etc.) as ratified by the House Of Stake governance system.
Feedback Analysis

The document has been in the public domain for over 60 days. It collected over 93 text edits, nearly 30 comments, and formed the feedback input for this final draft. To ensure that such stakeholder concerns are not missed, I manually copied every single comment, transcribed them into a separate database of questions. Then I clustered these questions based on topical similarity and filtered them according to the scope limitations of the current COI policy. To ensure the focus remains on the core function of a COI policy, I filtered out the questions that were primarily related to behavioral norms, community participation, and dispute resolution (as these issues fall within the Code of Conduct’s purview).

Filter:

Scope Clusters Rationale
Within COI Policy Scope Reporting & Disclosure Procedures, Transparency & Information Access, Assessment & Enforcement Mechanisms, Independence & Third-party Oversight, Policy Review & Amendment These clusters address the formal processes and enforcement mechanisms that are fundamental for managing COIs.
Within the scope of the Code of Conduct Policy Recusal, Challenges & Community Role These concern ethical behavior, participatory fairness, and disputes—issues best addressed in the CoC.

This filtering process resulted in a cluster of the following 6 key themes that are resolved in this final policy draft

Clusters Number of questions Representative Question
Reporting & Disclosure Procedures 10 What is the process of reporting COI incidents for endorsed delegates? What is the expected Code of Conduct?
Transparency & Information Access 6 What COI filings, assessments, and enforcement records should be public? What about disclosures with privileged information?
Recusal, Challenges & Community Role 5 Can community members challenge or comment on recusal decisions made by Delegates?
Assessment & Enforcement Mechanisms 7 What is the process of COI assessments by the screening committee? What are the expectations?
Independence & Third-party Oversight 5 Should a third-party resolution mechanism be used if Screening Committee/Security Council members have a perceived COI?
Policy Review & Amendment 3 How is this policy reviewed and amended?
Policy Reforms

Addressing feedback and input received from the community, please find below the policy reforms (and feedback that triggered such reforms)

Cluster 1: Reporting & Disclosure Procedures

Feedback:

  1. What is the process for reporting COI incidents by Delegates?
  2. Who must file disclosures and when?
  3. Should disclosures be required before assuming office?
  4. Should community members be able to report on potential COIs?
  5. What should the disclosure template include?

Policy Reforms:

Mandatory Initial & Ongoing Disclosures: All Delegates (endorsed/non-endorsed), Screening & Security Council members must file (i) prior to assuming office and (ii) update quarterly or upon material changes.

Community Reporting: Allow community members to submit concerns via an official channel with whistleblower protections.

Standard Template: All COI disclosures must follow a governance-approved template capturing:

  • Nature of the interest (financial, personal, professional).
  • Related party or organization.
  • Type of decision/governance area potentially affected.
  • Relevant roles of the individual.

Cluster 2: Transparency & Information Access

Feedback:

  1. What portion of COI filings and records should be public?
  2. Can privileged information be withheld?
  3. Should all COI-related actions be published in governance forums?

Policy Reforms:

Public Conflict Registry: Create a governance portal where all COI disclosures, recusals, and enforcement decisions are logged.

Redaction Rule: Sensitive information (e.g., personal identifiers, legally privileged details) may be redacted, but each entry must state:

  • That a conflict occurred,
  • General category of conflict,
  • Governance area affected, and
  • Resolution (disclosure, recusal, sanction).

Regular Transparency Reports: Publish quarterly summaries on the forum/registry outlining the number of disclosures, recusals, sanctions, and appeals.

Cluster 3: Assessment & Enforcement Mechanisms

Feedback:

  1. How should the Screening Committee review conflicts?
  2. What is the process from disclosure to outcome?
  3. What enforcement measures should exist, and what durations?

Policy Reforms:

Standardized Process: Screening Committee follows a 4-step timeline:

  • Receive disclosure/report
  • Conduct review & evidence gathering (14 days)
  • Issue recommendation/outcome (No Conflict, Minor Conflict, Material Conflict, Severe Conflict)
  • Document reasoning in governance log

Tiered Sanctions:

  • Level 1: Warning – for late/incomplete disclosures.
  • Level 2: Suspension (1–3 months) – for repeated failures/minor concealment.
  • Level 3: Extended Suspension (up to 12 months) – for significant concealment or repeated breaches.
  • Level 4: Removal – permanent loss of governance rights for severe/intentional misconduct.

Appeal Rights: Sanctioned individuals may appeal to the Security Council within 14 days. Council decision is final.

Cluster 4: Independence & Third-party Oversight

Feedback:

  1. What happens if the Screening Committee or the Security Council themselves are conflicted?
  2. Should an independent entity handle such cases?
  3. Who pays, and what authority do arbiters hold?

Policy Reforms:

  • Third-party Trigger: If 40% or more of the Screening Committee or Security Council declare conflicts in a case, that case must be referred to an independent arbiter.
  • Arbiter Pool: Maintain a pool of pre-approved auditors/governance experts.
  • Arbiter Powers: An Independent arbiter may recommend/decide enforcement, issue a binding resolution, and publish a public summary (with redactions).
  • Costs: All third-party arbitration funded via the Administrative Budget Wallet, capped per governance budget approvals.

Cluster 5: Policy Review & Amendment

Feedback:

  1. How often should the policy be reviewed?
  2. How should amendments be tracked and adopted?

Policy Reforms:

  • Annual Review: Policy reviewed once per year, with mandatory consultation on the governance forum.
  • Ad-hoc Reviews: May be triggered by major incidents, recommendations from Screening/Security Council, or community petitions with ≥5% tokenholder support.
  • Version Control: All amendments must be logged in a transparent, version-controlled registry with rationale documented.

House Of Stake Foundation- Conflict of Interest Policy (v1.0 Draft)

Article 1: Purpose

This Conflict of Interest Policy is adopted to ensure the integrity, transparency, and legitimacy of decision-making within the House of Stake and the NEAR Protocol ecosystem. Its purpose is to identify, disclose, manage, and enforce measures related to personal, professional, and financial conflicts of interest, thereby upholding the community’s trust and ensuring that governance decisions always prioritize the protocol-first principle.

Article 2: Scope & Persons Concerned

This policy applies to all individuals empowered to participate in or influence decisions on behalf of the House of Stake, including:

  1. Delegates (endorsed and non-endorsed).
  2. Members of the Screening Committee.
  3. Members of the Security Council.
  4. HoS Foundation Directors and Supervisors (where relevant).
  5. Contractors, Service Providers, and Program managers engaged with HoS Foundation via the proposal process
  6. Community members who, by taking leadership roles, working group responsibilities, or proposal ownership, materially influence outcomes.

Article 3: Definitions

Conflict of Interest (COI): A situation where an individual’s personal, professional, or financial interests interfere with, or could be reasonably perceived to interfere with, their ability to act impartially and in the best interests of the House of Stake and NEAR ecosystem. Both actual conflicts and perceived conflicts are covered.

Interested Person: Any individual identified in Article 2 who has the ability, either directly or indirectly, to influence the decisions, discussions, or outcomes of the House of Stake governance process.

Article 4: Procedures for Managing Conflicts

4.1: Discovery

Conflicts may be identified in three ways:

  1. Self-disclosure by the Interested Person.
  2. Community reporting, filed through the official reporting portal with whistleblower protections.
  3. Review initiated by the Screening Committee or Security Council.

4.2: Assessment Matrix

Conflict Status No Perception of Conflict Perception of Conflict Exists
No Conflict Level 1: Participate freely Level 2: Disclose publicly and consider voluntary recusal
Real Conflict Level 3: Disclosure + mandatory recusal Level 4: Full disclosure and complete abstention from related discussions, deliberations, and votes

Explanation of Levels

Level 1 (No Conflict) Participation permitted without restrictions.
Level 2(Perceived Conflict) Must disclose circumstances publicly; encouraged to step back if impartiality could be questioned.
Level 3 (Real Conflict) Disclosure required. A person must recuse from leading the discussion or voting on the matter. Delegates/committees may appoint an alternate if needed.
Level 4 (Real + Perceived Conflict) Full recusal required. Must disclose, abstain from voting, and physically (or virtually) remove themselves from deliberation spaces

4.3: Disclosure Requirements

  • Initial disclosure is required before assuming office.
  • Quarterly disclosure updates are mandatory for all Interested Persons.
  • Ad-hoc disclosures must be made within 14 days of any material change.

All disclosures must follow the respective standardized template, as defined in the Addendum, Section A: Disclosure Templates.

4.4: Recusal

  • Any Interested Person with a Level 3 or Level 4 conflict must recuse themselves.
  • Recusal requires leaving the room/meeting/discussion forum (physical or digital).
  • Recusals will be captured in meeting records and governance logs.

4.5: Review Process

  • The Screening Committee must review disclosures or reported conflicts within 14 days.
  • Determination categories: No Conflict, Minor/Perceived Conflict, Material Conflict, Severe Conflict.
  • If ≥40% of the Committee or Security Council are conflicted in the same case, referral to an Independent Arbiter is mandatory (see Article 5).

4.6: Ongoing Disclosures

All persons subject to this policy must reaffirm their COI disclosures quarterly, even if “No new conflicts” exist.

4.7: Investigations and Recourses

  • The Screening Committee or the Security Council may interview involved parties, request evidence, and gather documentation.
  • If misconduct is found, the matter is escalated for enforcement (Article 5).
  • Cases may be referred to independent arbiters in high-conflict situations.

Article 5: Enforcement

Tiered Sanctions

Tier 1 Warning: For administrative lapses or late filing.
Tier 2 Short Suspension (1–3 months): For repeated errors or non-disclosure of minor interests.
Tier 3 Extended Suspension (3–12 months): For intentional concealment or repeated misconduct.
Tier 4 Removal: Permanent removal of the Delegate/Committee role for severe or recurring violations

Appeals:

Individuals may appeal enforcement decisions to the Security Council within 14 days. The Council’s decision is final and must be documented publicly.

Independent Oversight:

  • If enforcement cannot be impartially managed internally, the matter must be referred to an Independent Arbiter.
  • The Arbiter may review, recommend sanctions, and issue binding rulings.
  • Costs shall be funded from the HoS Budget(caps subject to governance approval).

Article 6: Transparency

Conflict Registry:

  • A public Conflict of Interest Registry will be maintained on the House of Stake portal.
  • Every case (disclosure, recusal, enforcement action) must be logged.

Redaction Rule:

Sensitive data may be redacted, but each record must minimally display:

  • That a conflict exists;
  • Its category (financial/personal/professional) & Level
  • Governance area affected.
  • Resolution/action taken.

Public Reports:

Quarterly transparency reports summarizing disclosures, recusals, sanctions, and appeals shall be published.

Article 7: Review and Amendments

Annual Review: Formal review once per year, with community consultation.

Ad-hoc Reviews: May be triggered by:

  • Major governance incidents.
  • A petition by ≥5% of tokenholders.
  • Recommendations from the Screening Committee or the Security Council.

Amendments:

Must be recorded in a version-controlled public log. Every change requires open publication of rationale and formal ratification by governance procedures.

Article 8: Declaration and Adoption

We, the members of House of Stake Governance, hereby adopt this Conflict of Interest Policy v1.0 on behalf of the governance community, affirming our commitment to uphold impartiality, transparency, and accountability in all actions and decisions affecting the NEAR Protocol ecosystem.

Signature and Adoption

Date of On‑Chain Vote: ______________________

On‑Chain Vote Link: _________________________

Outcome: Adopted / Rejected

Addendum

Section A: COI Disclosure Templates

All disclosures shall follow the standardized template format for consistency, comparability, and transparency.

  1. Initial Disclosure Template: T1 (to be filed before assuming office)
    Purpose: Capture baseline interests before assuming governance responsibilities.

Template fields:

Nature of Interest: e.g., financial, personal, professional.
Party/Organization Involved: Identify the related entity or individual.
Governance Area Impacted: Specify proposal, working group, or committee decisions possibly affected.
Relevant Roles Held: offices, jobs, advisory, or board positions held by the discloser.
  1. Quarterly Disclosure Template: T2 (to be filed every quarter)
    Purpose: Confirm existing interests or add new disclosures.

Template fields:

Reaffirmation: “No material changes”
Update disclosures: Same capture fields as above if there are new conflicts.
  1. Ad-hoc Disclosure: T3 (Material Change, within 14 Days)
    Purpose: React to a new conflict arising during a term.
Nature of the new conflict.
Party/Organization Involved:
Governance Area Impacted:
Date conflict was identified.
Steps taken by the Interested Person (e.g., voluntary recusal)

All disclosures must be public either via the official COI Portal or through the Governance Forum and logged into the Conflict Registry (as per Article 6).

Section B: Guidelines for Interested Persons to Determine COI

This section provides practical guidance to help determine when disclosure or recusal is necessary. It replaces the traffic‑light model with the four policy “Levels of Conflict”.

Level 1: No Conflict (No conflict + No Perception of conflict)

Participation Allowed — no restrictions apply.

Examples:

Voting: Working Groups:
Technical upgrades to the NEAR protocol. Reviewing grants from applicants you have no ties with.
House of Stake operational procedures. Selecting service providers you are unrelated to.
Budget allocations unrelated to your compensation.

Level 2: Perceived Conflict (No conflict, But Perception Exists)

Action: Disclose publicly, consider voluntary recusal.

Examples:

Voting: Working Groups:
You were previously employed by a project seeking funding (no ongoing interest). A friend or former colleague’s team applies for grants.
You own NFTs from a project applying for grants. You are part of the same online community as an applicant.
You’ve publicly endorsed a project that is now under evaluation.

Guidance:

Default to disclosure + recusal. If participation is essential (e.g., quorum shortage), disclose thoroughly, and allow fellow Delegates to decide whether you may remain involved.

Level 3: Real Conflict (Actual Conflict, But Not Widely Perceived)

Action: Disclosure and mandatory recusal.

Examples:

Voting: Working Groups:
You are an unpaid advisor for the project under vote. Your spouse/partner is a grantee staff member.
You hold token/equity in a project that is a direct proposal beneficiary. You have agreed to accept compensation in the future from the funding applicant.
You hold a stake in a competing project strategically affected by an HoS decision. You’re informally consulting with a service provider under consideration.

Guidance:

Disclose, recuse, and leave the room/forum. Allow other Delegates to handle the matter, refer to the screening committee

Level 4: Real + Perceived Conflict (Actual Conflict + Clear Perception)

Action: Full recusal required — disclose, abstain, and exit deliberations completely.

Examples:

Voting: Working Groups:
Voting to set or change your own term’s compensation. Reviewing your own organization’s grant application.
Voting on a proposal that gives you tokens or delegations directly. Serving as an advisor/employee of an applicant.
Your company/project seeks House of Stake funding. Evaluating a service provider you currently work for.
Proposals directly tied to Near Foundation where you are affiliated. Immediate financial gain or token distribution to yourself.

Guidance:

Recusal must be absolute. Do not influence outcomes. Peers will document the recusal and proceed without you.

Important Distinction: Drafting vs. Voting

You may participate in drafting and discussing proposals, even if they could indirectly benefit you.

You must abstain from the vote itself to remove any perception of bias.

The Guiding Principle

If a reasonable person could argue that your impartiality is compromised, you should recuse.

  • Ask: “Would I directly or indirectly benefit?”
  • Ask: “Could a neutral observer assume I benefit?”

If either is “yes,” recuse.

Recusal Process

STEP 1 Announce your conflict to the group.
STEP 2 Step back fully — avoid participating or influencing discussions.
STEP 3 Allow peers to manage resolution or appoint alternatives.
STEP 4 Ensure documentation — recusal noted in governance logs.
STEP 5 Stay out until resolved; do not check progress or influence indirectly.

Why it matters:

Every time you recuse, you strengthen trust in House of Stake governance, set a precedent for ethical standards, and protect the legitimacy of governance outcomes.

Signature and Adoption

Date of On‑Chain Vote: ______________________

On‑Chain Vote Link: _________________________

Outcome: Adopted / Rejected

Google doc

Next Steps

Delegate Feedback:
To ensure effective implementation, it is crucial to build awareness and consensus among all Interested Persons. Though the document has collected extensive community input, none of the delegates (or HoS Governance Team) has provided any feedback on the document. Before it goes to a vote, it is imperative that the policy sources a consensus from these stakeholders.
Consensus and Adoption:
Upon activation of the House of Stake voting platform, a formal proposal should be submitted to adopt this Conflict of Interest Policy via an on-chain vote.

2 Likes
2

Great job. Thanks!

One question: How is enforcement going to work?

3
  • NF employees engaged in the HoS - important o add

  1. Within 2 weeks after HoS went live

  2. on the Gov forum

/or commissions at the Security Council

  • Cases may be referred to independent 3rd party arbiters in high-conflict situations.

by the Security Council orcommissions at the Security Council

1 Like
4

LGTM

One question comes to mind regarding Article 7’s Review and Amendments, it requires a yearly review of governance incidents with community consultation.

Should we be specific about what constitutes community consultation or is there already a standard approach in mind? An example could be a forum post and twitter space, with a time-bound request for community comments, with eventual summary of comments and next steps (if any).

1 Like
5

Regarding few more areas for potential improvement:

  1. Thresholds for One to Act on their potential Conflicts

    1. Observation: The sanctions framework is well tiered, but it’s ambiguous who decides when something rises from Tier 2 → Tier 3 → Tier 4.

    2. Potential Improvements: We could define more objective thresholds.

      1. For example, if an Interested Person holds tokens/receives income from a relevant party:

      2. • Minor Exposure (0-5% of HoS yearly budget) → Level 2 (Perceived): disclose; consider voluntary recusal.

      3. • Material Exposure (5-10% of HoS yearly budget) → Level 3: disclose + mandatory recusal from discussion and vote.

      4. • Major Exposure (>10% of HoS yearly budget) → Level 4: full recusal and exit deliberations.

      5. Token holdings in NEAR should be assumed; only project-specific token/income exposures or validator operator income should trigger Levels 3–4.

  2. 40% threshold for an independent arbiter

  3. Observation: An Independent Arbiter is only invoked if ≥40% of two specific committees, the Screening Committee or Security Council, are conflicted in the same case. Requiring 40% of a governing body to be conflicted before bringing in an Independent Arbiter leaves room for serious but smaller-scale conflicts to be judged by peers who may not be truly impartial.

  4. Example: If only 25% of the committee stand to gain financially, but they are influential members, the perception of bias may still exist.

  5. Potential Improvements:

    1. Define lower threshold and/or scenarios that are automatic triggers for Independent Arbiter involvement for the security and screening committees

      1. Any appeal where the same body would otherwise be both judge and jury.

      2. any case involving sitting committee members’ direct financial gain

    2. How large will the screening and security committees be? Perhaps we should lower the threshold to 25%.

    3. Community-initiated Referral: Allow token holders to petition for an Arbiter if they believe a conflict case isn’t being handled fairly. e.g. if ≥5% of token holders support the petition

  6. Distinction Between Drafting vs. Voting

    1. Observation: The Addendum says participants may draft proposals that affect them but must abstain from votes. This is pragmatic, but we may want to tighten guardrails.

    2. Potential Improvement:

      1. Let’s require transparency that a proposal draft was authored by someone with an interest, so others don’t assume it’s an impartial proposal.

  7. Community Reporting & Whistleblower Protections

    1. Observation: It mentions “whistleblower protections” but gives no detail.

    2. Potential Improvement: Codify these protections — e.g., anonymity guarantees, non-retaliation clauses, and escalation pathways if the report concerns Screening Committee members themselves.

  8. Transparency vs. Privacy

    1. Observation: The registry will log “category, level, governance area affected” but redact sensitive data.

    2. Potential Improvement: Let’s come up with examples of a before and after document that clarifies our redaction standards. Because we may all differ on what we deem to be “sensitive” information. Without consistency, people may over-redact and undermine transparency.

  9. Education and Onboarding

    1. Observation: Policy assumes people know when they’re conflicted.

    2. Potential Improvement: Develop a mandatory onboarding session or quick guide that walks through common COI examples for House of Stake. To help avoid ignorance-based violations.

      1. Examples of things which we can clarify in onboarding education:

        1. What it means to disclose token holdings/income in projects under review. How might we do this while maintaining privacy, e.g. Disclose by bands (e.g., <$1k, $1–10k, $10–50k, >$50k) per project/proposal, rather than exact balances or wallet addresses.

        2. Ownership of NEAR tokens, staking income, or validator rewards consistent with protocol participation shall not in itself constitute a Conflict of Interest. Conflicts must be tied to specific projects, proposals, or service providers whose outcomes create disproportionate or unique benefits for the Interested Person.

        3. Define “Financial Interest”. A financial interest may include any on-chain or off-chain position reasonably expected to be affected by a governance action, including but not limited to: spot token or NFT holdings; liquidity-provider (LP) shares; staking/validator income (including MEV/fee share); derivatives (perpetuals, futures, options, short positions); vault or index tokens; refunds/rebates, referral or revenue-share agreements; anticipated retroactive funding or airdrops.

2 Likes
6

Read along with Article 4: Enforcement

7

The focus here has to be about bringing in legitimacy to any amendments through the public consultation process. The natural method is to

  1. Publish amendments on the governance forum
  2. Provide a feedback window for the community to register consensus/ disagreement
  3. Incorporate feedback received as part of this public consultation
  4. Vote in the amended CoI policy through the House Of Stake voting pipeline.
1 Like
8

NF employees engaged in the HoS would automatically fall under the categories of either -

  1. Delegates (endorsed and non-endorsed)
  2. Members of the screening Council
  3. Members of Security Council
  4. HoS Foundation Directors and Supervisors (where relevant)
  5. Contractors, Service Providers, and Program managers engaged with HoS Foundation via the proposal process

The CoI arises in relation to the proposal process with the House Of Stake Foundation. It does not matter whether they are NF employees or not; if they fall under any of the above categories, they are an “interested person”.

Nothing against this suggestion- ideally, this should be enforced ONLY after the policy itself has been ratified through a vote.

I would suggest creating a thread for the delegates to do this via the governance forum. Again, I agree with the suggestion.

Please see the quoted text :

In other ecosystems, such governance reporting functions fall under the function of a dedicated DAO Relations Team. The idea here is that regardless of who publishes it, the report needs to be public.

2 Likes
9

On the subject of sanctions, the discretion of tiers falls under the authority of the Screening Committee, the Security Council, or the Third Party Auditor (in case of the first two conflicting with the complaint).

Please note that the Levels of Conflict are a framework for discovery - not sanctions. Having said that, correlating conflict levels with the annual budget for the House Of Stake could be an interesting idea. This could be a point to be finalised before the policy is voted on by the HoS governance process.

The 40% threshold was designed with a numerical limit of 5 people each in both the bodies. The logic being that at 40% a complaint or review could still be judged by the remaining 3 people that would have otherwise been necessary for a majority decision. Also please note that with the Screening Committee being elected and the Security Council selected- the chances of both conflicting out reduces radically.

25% would be 1.25 (in a committee of 5), so I do not understand the logic behind that number. If we reduce it to 20% (1/5), the threshold of that conflicted vote potentially affecting the quality of an outcome is relatively minor.

It would not happen as per the policy, as appeals are judged by the Security Council, while the initial complaints are reviewed by the Screening Committee.
Also, it goes without saying that if any sitting committee member has a direct financial gain, they are automatically conflicted out.

Excellent suggestion - another point for the delegates to vote on and decide.

Agreed, the final proposal template will (as I drafted the proposal template as well) include a CoI declaration section (as suggested by @paulofonseca ) in every proposal.

Whistleblower policy, its features, and the mechanism fall directly under the scope of the Code Of Conduct Policy, not the COI policy. Agreed, CoC should ideally define a mechanism for this function.

Please note that the discretion of what to omit/ redact falls with the Screening Committee (as it will be on a case-by-case basis). The policy does dictate a minimum amount of disclosure as stated below. The policy also provides templates for disclosures in the Addendum.

There is a guideline for discovery attached in the Addendum B with more than 21 working examples for voting and working group participation. This was reduced from 40 in the initial draft. Having said that, if the HoS DAO intends to spend resources on focused CoI training based on this Policy, I would be happy to conduct it as a separate effort. This contribution is about policy drafting - it is not fair to commission a mandatory training as part of a policy drafting experience, most often these are two separate functions.

Instead of specific band-based holdings disclosures (which would most probably put them in circumvention of potential investment NDAs), a better suggestion would be to disclose them as a percentage of the annual House Of Stake Budget (considering annual HoS Budgets are still powered by 0.5% inflation rewards - otherwise this matrix creates more problems than it solves). As agreed earlier, this is an excellent suggestion - but it is up to the delegates to vote this in as policy at this stage.

Goes without saying.

All of which I agree with, but the policy terms are broad for a reason. For example, if we were to define the term ‘personal’ using the same level of minutiae, we would have to include ‘spouses’, ‘kids’, ‘grandparents’, and so forth. The term is broad, as it also needs to provide some leeway for subjectivity for the reviewers. ‘Common sense shall prevail’ is the assumption with which this policy empowers the reviewers.

Thank you @charleslavon, for the excellent suggestions and questions - please reply in the same thread if any of the answers are unresolved or not up to your standards.

1 Like
10

That’s fair. I assumed larger committee sizes

1 Like
11

The latest version of the Conflict of Interest Policy (v0.3), incorporating community feedback from the past few weeks, is now published for review as we prepare for a ratification vote:

Please take a moment to review it.
Many thanks to @UhthredB for developing this policy document!

3 Likes