Open Community Feedback Cycle Report
1. Executive Summary
This Open Community Feedback Cycle Report documents how the NEAR House of Stake (HoS) Mission, Vision & Values (MVV) evolved from version v0.1.1 to v0.1.4 over the course of Co-Creation Cycle 1 in October 2025, based on feedback gathered from and with the community during a series of participatory design and engagement activities.
This report aims to meet the highest possible standard of transparency, helping to foster healthy and productive decentralised sense-making and governance. Current and future community members can use this report to understand decisions that were made and trace these back to specific points of feedback.
Key Insights
- Broad support for the overall direction and purpose, including the Vision statement.
- Stakeholders consistently emphasized AI augmentation of human governance, rather than autonomy-replacing AI.
- Strong desire to inclusively articulate who participates in and benefits engagement in House of Stake with healthy debate around terms including users, owners, stakeholders and community.
Key Outcomes
The MVV was updated to:
- Emphasize community-centricity, including recognising the role of the full range of stakeholders in governance.
- Reframe AI as augmentative, governed by humans to ensure alignment with community values.
- Elaborate on the values to expand upon important details.
This resulted in 75% of feedback items being addressed, most of which were fully addressed by the changes made.
Next Steps
Based on the evidence and positive engagement we’ve experienced, we believe this Mission, Vision and Values represents a strong and comprehensive foundation with which to continue building and growing House of Stake.
The right MVV should feel like a clear and compelling North Star that serves to:
- Guide and align all of our activities
- Unlock the next stages of operationalizing our governance processes, practices and tools
- Open up inclusive participation pathways towards realizing the full potential of community-led decentralized governance
We will be putting forwards a Sensing Proposal to guage the level of support for this MVV. This is with the hope that you find it as compelling as we do and the openness to listen out for and adapt to any further feedback and concerns from those we may not have heard from so far in this process.
Read on to understand how we got here and where we’re going next…
2. Community Feedback Overview
We are incredibly grateful to those who participated in co-creation cycle 1. You provided targeted, constructive feedback focused on framing precision and conceptual balance between decentralization and adaptability. The dialogue quality was high, with iterative back-and-forth on several focal topics.
2.1 Participation Summary
| Open Feedback Period | October 3–28, 2025 |
| Total Feedback Entries | 33 from 9 participants |
| Engagement Channels | F-MVV = NEAR HoS ForumW-MVV = Community Co-Creation Workshop |
| Direct Stakeholder Participants | 4 groups — Community Members, App Developers, NEAR OG, HoS Core |
2.2 Feedback Summary (by Sentiment)
| Theme | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Positive / Aligned | 9 | 27% █████████ |
| Constructive / Conditional Support | 22 | 67% ████████████████████ |
| Negative / Critical | 2 | 6% ██ |
2.3 Feedback Summary (by Theme)
| Theme | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Community Ownership & Inclusion | 13 | 30% ██████████ |
| AI Governance & Human Oversight | 10 | 23% ███████ |
| Governance Structure & Adaptability | 7 | 16% █████ |
| Cultural Stickiness & Identity | 6 | 14% █████ |
| Credible Neutrality & Sovereignty | 3 | 7% ███ |
| Transparency & Dignity | 3 | 7% ███ |
| General Sentiment | 2 | 5% ██ |
| Total | 44 | 100% |
Note: The total count of 44 reflects that many of the 33 distinct items of feedback were related to multiple themes.
| Theme | % of Feedback | Summary of Sentiment |
|---|---|---|
| Community Ownership & Inclusion | 30% | Shift from ‘NEAR owners and users’ to ‘NEAR stakeholder community’ was widely supported. Desire for clear onboarding and paths to meaningful contribution opportunities. |
| AI Governance & Human Oversight | 23% | Broad support for AI augmentation as long as human governance remains final arbiter. Concerns about potential complexity and transparency of AI use. |
| Governance Structure & Adaptability | 16% | Positive response to ‘evolving governance system’ language. Recognition of importance of balancing clear processes and rules with staying adaptable and nimble. |
| Cultural Stickiness & Identity | 14% | Participants supported continuity of the NEAR ethos but warned against potential to over-engineer culture statements rather than ‘walk the walk’. |
| Credible Neutrality & Sovereignty | 7% | Strong endorsement across stakeholder groups: neutrality is seen as non-negotiable foundation. |
| Transparency & Dignity | 7% | Consensus that privacy must be protected even as governance data opens up. How to achieve this in practice will be key, with some great early idea-sharing towards that. |
| General Sentiment | 5% | Broad support 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. |
2.4 Observations
- Feedback was focused on the content of the Mission, Vision, Values, rather than how it would be used or operationalized, which is exactly in line with what is needed at this stage.
- Thematic overlap shows AI governance, adaptive design, and inclusive community ownership as the three dominant clusters.
3. Resulting Artifact Changes
This section documents every change to the MVV between v0.1.1 and v0.1.4 and the evidence-supported rationale for these.
The columns of these tables reference:
- From – v0.1.1 text | Forum post
- To – v0.1.4 text | Forum post above
- Feedback IDs – from the feedback log
F-MVV-***= ForumW-MVV-***= Workshop
- Rationale – based on combination of specific feedback and editorial judgement
3.1 Substantive content changed traced to feedback
Vision
| Section | From (v0.1.1) | To (v0.1.4) | Feedback IDs & Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | Decentralised governance for humanity-enhancing AI | Decentralised governance for the user-owned Internet and humanity-enhancing AI | W-MVV-101, W-MVV-102 The vision had strong support and we have expanded upon this to include “user-owned Internet” based on strong support for 2.6, also helping tighten up the Mission. This also creates better connection with the broader vision and tech stack of NEAR, being more all-encompassing than solely AI. |
Mission
| Section | From (v0.1.1) | To (v0.1.4) | Feedback IDs & Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.2 | to establish a new kind of governance system | To establish an evolving governance system | W-MVV-110, W-MVV-111 Better expresses adaptability, continuous iteration and improvement; rather than reaching a static state. |
| 2.3 | co-created, co-operated and co-governed | (no change) | F-MVV-101, F-MVV-102, F-MVV-104 Retained based on broad support for this statement. |
| 2.3 | by NEAR owners and users | by an AI-augmented NEAR stakeholder community (end of 2.3 merged into 2.4) | F-MVV-101, F-MVV-104, F-MVV-108, W-MVV-102, W-MVV-104, W-MVV-106, W-MVV-107 Places community at the heart, qualifying it to be inclusive of all stakeholder groups. |
| 2.4 | fully embracing AI | by an AI-augmented NEAR stakeholder community | F-MVV-108, F-MVV-112, F-MVV-113, W-MVV-112, W-MVV-113, W-MVV-114, W-MVV-115 Maintains the spirit of “embracing AI” in emphasising the centrality of AI to this mission, while also positioning the role of AI as augmentation of human intelligence and community wisdom. |
| 2.5 | incorruptible, uncapturable and sovereign by default | (no change) | W-MVV-101 Retained verbatim due to strong alignment around these valued principles. |
| 2.6 | and bring in the era of user-owned, humanity-enhancing AI | (merged into Vision) | F-MVV-109, W-MVV-107 Clarifies collective ownership; aligns with decentralization ethos. |
Values
| Value | From (v0.1.1) | To (v0.1.4) | Feedback IDs & Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1 Credible Neutrality | Governance must remain resistant to capture by individuals, institutions, or cartels. | Governance must be built by, with and for the community, augmented by community-aligned AI that enhances transparency, intelligence and fairness, ensuring freedom from control and capture by individuals, institutions, or closed groups. | F-MVV-113 Places community at the heart while clarifying a central role for AI predicated on clear alignment and accountability. |
| 3.2 Experimentation with Safety | …are tested in lower-stakes environments before being merged into the main system. | …are tested, via rapid prototyping and iteration, in lower-stakes environments before being merged into the main system. | W-MVV-118 Clarified that these experiments should be rapid and iterative, so they contribute to acceleration rather than creating unnecessary friction. |
| 3.4 Autonomy with Accountability | …freedom to innovate, balanced with clear success gates and measurable outcomes. | …freedom to innovate, balanced with clear success gates and measurable outcomes. Community-governed mechanisms should be in place for setting and regularly reviewing these objectives, in a fair and transparent way, directing activity towards our mission. | F-MVV-113 Adds explicit accountability layer and review process. |
| 3.5 Adaptive Governance | …evolve iteratively, guided by feedback loops, changing ecosystem needs and emerging opportunities. | …evolve iteratively, guided by feedback loops and data-driven continuous learning systems that sense and respond to changing ecosystem needs and emerging opportunities. | F-MVV-106, F-MVV-107 Introduces measurable learning. |
| 3.6 Inclusive & Meaningful Participation | Influence at the top may be proportional to stake, but lower levels of governance provide opportunities where every voice can matter | Decision-making influence may be proportional to stake, and our governance system must also provide opportunities for all community members to contribute | F-MVV-101, F-MVV-102, W-MVV-107 Creates stronger emphasis on inclusivity for all community members. |
| 3.7 Transparency with Dignity | Decisions, funding, and performance are open and legible, while respecting privacy and personal boundaries. | (same, with updated behavioral test: “Can this be shared with the community to enhance collective intelligence, without compromising anyone’s right to privacy?”) | F-MVV-106 Retained based on support and clarified boundary between openness and personal dignity. |
| 3.8 AI-Augmented, Human-Governed | We embrace AI as a tool for more representative, efficient, and adaptive governance — augmenting human judgment without replacing human values. | We embrace AI as a tool for fair, representative, efficient, and adaptive governance at scale. AI agents can be core participants in our governance processes. We build such agents in a decentralised, open-source and permissionless way, requiring that they operate transparently and in adherance with all of our values, so they can act as neutral, community-aligned governance participants. | F-MVV-108, F-MVV-110, F-MVV-111, F-MVV-112, F-MVV-113, W-MVV-119 Expands detail around AI participation and governance transparency. |
| 3.9 Public Goods as Growth Engines | Investment in shared infrastructure, tools, and governance systems is not overhead, but a powerful enabler of compounding network effects. | We invest in shared infrastructure, tools, and governance systems, building out a data-driven governance layer for the use of humans an AI, as a powerful enabler of compounding network effects. | F-MVV-107, W-MVV-120 Added data-driven governance layer, which would be essential to optimize decision efficiency as HoS grows. |
3.2 Editorial changes
- Removed unnecessary prefix (2.1) “House of Stake’s mission is”.
- Reordered elements of mission statement to be more concise and improve structure and flow (from what, to how, to who), making it easier to read, digest and remember.
- Reordered to “co-created, co-governed and co-operated” to reflect the order in which we are focusing on things (first creating; then establishing governance principles and processes; then operationalising).
3.3 Summary
- Total changes: 13 substantive content changes + 3 editorial changes to make mission shorter and punchier.
- Feedback coverage: 100% of substantive content changes mapped to at least one logged item of feedback.
4. Points for Future Consideration
The following feedback points which were either Partially Adopted or Deferred should be further considered following ratification, and could be the subject of additional proposals as we move into operationalisation:
Missing data-driven governance layer / institutional memory
Source: F-MVV-107 from @Othman - Forum Post
Related to: Values 5, 8, 9
Summary: One thing that feels missing is a data-driven governance layer, a way for the DAO to capture and analyze its own decision history. Building that kind of institutional memory could greatly improve both legitimacy and decision quality over time. I’d also emphasize making feedback and outcome tracking more explicit, governance needs feedback and iteration to stay effective.
Decision: Partially Adopted - We’ve addressed this with further elaboration in these three values. A DAO Data Strategy is very much needed. There is a need for structure, process, tooling for data as the infrastructure to enable voters to have the context they need, to be data-informed, for human’s + AI to work together with decision-support systems and tools for data-driven decision making. Full adoption of a Governance Memory System (GMS) could be achieved via a separate Proposal.
More specific policy for principles and guardrails for AI usage
Source: F-MVV-112 from @Dacha - Forum Post
Related to: Mission, Value 8 (AI-Augmented, Human-Governed)
Summary: AI governance details: might we need separate principles or guardrails for how AI is used in DAO decision-making?
Decision: Partially Adopted - We’ve partially addressed this in the revised value. It could be great to create further, more specific policy to articulate our principles and guardrails for how we build, deploy, use and oversee AI. This was also raised in the community workshop.
Iteration times of Experiments
Source: W-MVV-118 from Community Users in Workshop
Related to: Value 2 (Experimentation with Safety)
Summary: Need to be clear about iteration times
Decision: Partially Adopted - We’ve partially addressed this in the revised value by establishing clear guidance for experiments to produce quick results and learnings. Exact cycle times could be covered in more specific policy documents and proposals.
Public Goods
Source: W-MVV-120 from @juankbell in Workshop
Related to: Value 9 (Public Goods as Growth Engines)
Summary: Public goods are growth engines, but they can get very complex and problematic. How to manage public good complexity and avoid falling in the tragedy of the commons?
Decision: Deferred - This will come down to the detail of how we work towards this value, so can be elaborated further through more specific policy and proposals aligned to that.
5. Breakdown of Feedback by Action Taken
Every point of feedback was considered and a decision taken of how to handle it:
| Action Taken | Count | Percentage | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adopted | 22 | 67% ██████████████████████ |
Updates made in alignment with this feedback |
| Partially Adopted | 3 | 9% ███ |
Updates made to align with part of this feedback |
| Not Adopted | 5 | 15% █████ |
Updates did not align with this feedback (e.g. due to conflicting feedback) |
| No Action Needed | 2 | 6% ██ |
No update needed (e.g. feedback supportive of existing wording) |
| Deferred | 1 | 3% █ |
Deferred to next cycle for further consideration |
| Total | 33 | 100% |
The Action Taken and Answer to every point of feedback is documented in the Feedback Log – MVV
6. Conclusion
This Open Feedback Cycle of the House of Stake Co-Creation Process demonstrated transparent, evidence-based, and participatory co-design resulting in a Mission, Vision and Values that we believe the community can confidently move forwards with.
Building on all that got us to where NEAR and House of Stake are now, we started with a set of statements that already had lots of support. Community critique and healthy debate have further moulded and polished it, refining where emphasis is placed and sharpening how things are phrased.
Alignment around this shared purpose is strong:
- a powerful vision to create the future we want to bring about;
- a mission that places community at the heart, embracing AI to augment human intelligence and wisdom;
- and values that give us detailed guiding principles to stay on course as we all continue to build and learn.
Let’s now see if we’ve got enough support to put this to ratification vote and boldly go into the future of House of Stake, with this North Star to guide and align us in creating the future we dream of.
Look out for the Sensing Proposal in the coming days!
Authorship & Acknowledgements
Authored by:
@dancunningham & @KlausBrave & @haenko - @HackHumanity
AI Usage:
ChatGPT 5 was used in drafting this report to (1) synthesise, summarise and draw out key themes from all feedback received; (2) assess overall coherance and readiness to move towards ratification.All AI outputs were checked for correctness and copy-edited by at least two human team members, editing down the report from ~4,700 words to ~2,700 words.