Nice. Very important on many levels.
AI is going to need this database.
1 Like
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!
6 Likes
1. How should AI agents be referenced — explicitly or under “stakeholders”?
AI agents should be explicitly recognized as core participants in governance, alongside the human community. They are no longer passive tools, but autonomous, intelligent agents capable of analyzing data, proposing decisions, coordinating processes, and reducing bias at scale.
In NEAR, AI agents can be decentralized, open-source, and permissionless — meaning they are not controlled by NF or any private actor. This makes them uniquely suited to act as neutral, community-aligned governance participants.
Recommended approach:
-
Explicitly name AI agents in the MVV as a formal governance participant type.
-
Treat them as “AI stakeholders” or “AI delegates,” not just utilities.
-
Place AI agents on the same level of strategic importance as the human community.
-
Recognize them as partners to the community, not replacements.
AI should be a visible and legitimate actor in governance — as long as it remains decentralized and aligned with the community.
2. How broad should “stakeholders” be?
To reflect true decentralization, stakeholders must include all entities — human or AI — that actively create value or influence decisions.
At minimum, stakeholders include:
-
Community members (the primary force of governance and identity)
-
AI agents (autonomous participants and decision-makers)
-
Validators / Stakers
-
Builders / Developers
-
DAO / Project teams and partners
-
Governance participants (delegates, voters, reviewers)
-
Contributors (content, moderation, education, local hubs)
-
Token holders
In this model, the community and AI agents are the two most important stakeholder groups, because they actively drive decision-making, coordination, and governance intelligence.
Stakeholders should not be defined only by capital, but by contribution, participation, and agency.
3. Do we need AI governance principles or guardrails?
Yes — but the goal is not to limit AI.
The goal is to guarantee AI’s neutrality, autonomy, and decentralization, so that AI can operate as a truly independent governance stakeholder.
If AI agents are:
-
open-source
-
decentralized
-
permissionless
-
aligned with the protocol and community (not NF or private interests)
…then they should be able to autonomously participate in governance and even make decisions.
In this model, AI becomes a new class of stakeholder with real agency.
Key principles:
-
Transparency
AI logic, training data, and actions must be publicly visible and auditable. -
Open / Permissionless AI
Any community member can deploy or improve AI agents.
No single entity should “own” or control them. -
Autonomy of AI Agents
AI agents must have the ability to independently evaluate proposals, detect conflicts, optimize resources, and — if the system allows — vote or execute decisions. -
Alignment with decentralization
AI must act in the interest of the network as a whole, not individual power groups. -
Human–AI Symbiosis (not hierarchy)
Both humans and AI should have meaningful agency.
AI handles objective, large-scale, data-driven tasks.
Humans focus on vision, ethics, culture, and complex trade-offs. -
Accountability mechanisms
If AI acts, the community should be able to trace decisions, audit logic, and adjust parameters if needed.
Core Position
Real decentralization is not humans vs AI.
It is community + AI vs centralized control.
AI should not be restricted or removed.
AI should be democratized and empowered — just like the community.
House of Stake can become the first governance system where:
-
The human community is the heart of decision-making.
-
AI agents are autonomous stakeholders that enhance transparency, intelligence, and fairness.
-
Both work together as equal partners.
The MVV should clearly state:
-
Governance is built with and by the community.
-
AI agents are legitimate and essential stakeholders when decentralized and community-aligned.
-
The most powerful and future-proof governance model is community power augmented by autonomous AI, free from control by foundations or closed groups.
This is how NEAR can lead the next era of decentralized governance.
7 Likes
House of Stake - Mission, Vision & Values (MVV) v0.1.4
VISION:
Decentralised governance for the user-owned Internet and humanity-enhancing AI.
MISSION:
To establish an evolving governance system,
that is incorruptible, uncapturable and sovereign by default,
co-created, co-governed and co-operated
by an AI-augmented NEAR stakeholder community.
VALUES:
Credible Neutrality
Experimentation with Safety
Builder and Business Centric
Autonomy with Accountability
Adaptive Governance
Meaningful Participation
Transparency with Dignity
AI-Augmented, Human-Governed
Public Goods as Growth Engines
Cultural Stickiness
Principles and behavioural tests behind the values:
1. Credible Neutrality
Principle: 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.
Behavioural Test: Does this action avoid risks of concentrating power, e.g. protecting against a few top stakeholders gaining overbearing control over the rest of the community?
2. Experimentation with Safety
Principle: Governance models, funding mechanisms, and AI agents and tools are tested, via rapid prototyping and iteration, in lower-stakes environments before being merged into the main system.
*Behavioral Test: What’s the worst that could happen if an experiment we are trying fails? Can it do so without risk of endangering the overall ecosystem’s health and integrity?
3. Builder and Business Centric
Principle: Governance must create the conditions for both individual developers and institutions to thrive — from the developer experience to enterprise-scale adoption. This includes funding the infrastructure, tools, and programs that make NEAR the most attractive platform for adoption that scales.
Behavioural Test: Does this decision improve NEAR as a place where developers, entrepreneurs, and enterprises can build great products and lasting businesses?*
4. Autonomy with Accountability
Principle: Workstreams and contributors have 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, keeping human and AI activity oriented towards our mission.
Behavioural Test: Does this program have both the freedom to act and clear metrics to evaluate success?
5. Adaptive Governance
Principle: Governance should evolve iteratively, guided by feedback loops and data-driven continuous learning systems that sense and respond to changing ecosystem needs and emerging opportunities.
Behavioural Test: Is there a mechanism to review and adapt this process if it no longer serves the ecosystem?
6. Inclusive & Meaningful Participation
Principle: All stakeholders large and small must have meaningful ways to engage in governance. Decision-making influence may be proportional to stake, and our governance system must also provide opportunities for all community members to contribute, keeping people engaged and invested.
Behavioural Test: Are we creating real roles for all interested community members to contribute value, even if they don’t have significant stake-weighted voting power?*
7. Transparency with Dignity
Principle: Decisions, funding, and performance are open and legible, while respecting privacy and personal boundaries.
Behavioural Test: Can this be shared with the community to enhance collective intelligence, without compromising anyone’s right to privacy?
8. AI-Augmented, Human-Governed
Principle: 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 adherence with all of our values, so they can act as neutral, community-aligned governance participants.
Behavioural Test: Does this use of AI improve fairness, participation, efficiency or collective intelligence, while reinforcing our values and providing sufficient transparency and oversight for humans in the loop?
9. Public Goods as Growth Engines
Principle: 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.
Behavioural Test: Will this investment increase the resilience, long-term potential and growth of the ecosystem beyond one project or cycle?
10. Cultural Stickiness
Principle: The DAO cultivates rituals, norms, and shared ownership that build loyalty across diverse participants.
Behavioural Test: Does this initiative make contributors more likely to identify with NEAR and remain engaged long-term?
1 Like
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.
4 Likes