On Monday, we held the first co-creation workshop to bring community members together to evaluate our draft v0.1.1 Mission, Vision, Values.
In the spirit of inclusivity and transparency, all participants consented to sharing:
- The Miro board we used on the workshop (open for all to view and comment on)
- The video recording on tl;dv for those who want to see the detailed discussion (or read the AI summary)
Purpose and Focus
- The workshop was about alignment: understanding the perspectives of participants about why House of Stake exists, where it’s heading, and how to express that clearly.
- It wasn’t just another presentation; it was a collaborative working session.
- The group was small, but the discussion was focused, open, and constructive.
Participants
- Facilitated by @KlausBrave @dancunningham @HumbertoBesso from @HackHumanity
- 8 community members participated, along with 6 members of the Hack Humanity team.
Overall Takeaway
There was broad support from all participants for the overall direction and purpose, including the vision statement.
The vision and values already capture the right spirit: sovereignty, accountability, adaptive governance, and a connection to NEAR’s broader mission.
Most-supported and most contentious statements
Amongst participants, the strongest support was for:
| Area | Statement | Positive sentiment | Questions or critique |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vision | 1.1. Decentralised governance for humanity-enhancing AI |
 |
- |
| Mission | 2.3. co-created, co-operated and co-governed by NEAR owners and users |
|
- |
| Mission | 2.5. to be incorruptible, uncapturable and sovereign by default |
|
- |
| Mission | 2.6 and bring in the era of user-owned, humanity-enhancing AI |
|
|
| Values | 3.5. Adaptive Governance |
|
- |
| Values | 3.8. AI-Augmented, Human-Governed |
|
- |
| Values | 3.4. Autonomy with Accountability |
|
- |
| Values | 3.2. Experimentation with Safety |
|
- |
The statements with most contention were:
| Area | Statement | Positive sentiment | Questions or critique |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mission | 2.2. to establish a new kind of governance system |
|
|
| Mission | 2.4. fully embracing AI |
- | |
Key Adjustments
On AI
- Agreement that the phrase “fully embracing AI” should be toned down.
- “Fully” sounded too extreme or even reckless, as if we’d give over everything to unilateral AI control.
- The group preferred wording like “embracing AI to augment humans” or “AI-augmented, human-governed.”
- The main idea: AI should empower people, not replace them.
On Governance
- Instead of saying “a new governance system”, as it will no longer be “new” when successfully adopted, the group leaned toward calling it an “adaptive” or “evolving governance system.”
- This better reflects the idea that House of Stake will continue to evolve — governance shouldn’t freeze in its first version.
On Participants
- The phrase “owners and users” caused some confusion — it sounded too binary.
- Most thought “stakeholders” had a better level of specificity, while “community” might also be too general and open to broad interpretation.
- It was felt important to emphasise that this goes beyond just financial stakeholders, to be inclusive of token holders, validators, contributors, users, and potentially AI agents.
- The idea is inclusivity, but with enough specificity to stay meaningful.
Open Questions
- How to reference AI agents — should they be explicitly mentioned in MVV, or just covered under “stakeholders”?
- Defining stakeholders: how broad should this term be?
- AI governance details: might we need separate principles or guardrails for how AI is used in DAO decision-making?
Process and Next Steps
- This was part of Co-Creation Cycle 1, which is still open for asynchronous feedback on the Forum.
- We’re working on how to get even deeper, broader and wider feedback from the full range of stakeholder groups across the community.
- We’re always open to feedback. We will continue to adapt how we run these processes, informed by the will of the community.
- At the end of Co-Creation Cycle 1, we will create an updated v0.2 MVV based on the synthesis of feedback received from all sources and channels
- The goal is consent, not full consensus — meaning it’s fine if not everyone loves it, as long as no one strongly objects.
- There’s also interest in running a dedicated workshop on AI governance — to go deeper into how humans and AI collaborate in decision-making.
Overall Reflections
The session made it clear that Mission, Vision, and Values aren’t just words — they’re the compass for every decision the DAO will make.
Getting these right matters and is worth investing time on.
A huge thank you to @coffee-crusher @Othman @jlwaugh and all participants for your engagement and collaboration in this endeavour.
The energy was good: thoughtful, experimental, and community-driven.
Call to Action
If this has got you thinking, we want to hear what’s on your mind. Do you have questions or see potential issues with any of the statements? Ideas to share? Weigh in with your thoughts on this thread!