Frontmatter
hsp: 5
title: House of Stake - Code of Conduct
description: Check readiness to ratify Code of Conduct
author: Hack Humanity (@HackHumanity)
discussions-to: HSP-005: House of Stake - Code of Conduct
status: Review
type: Sensing
category: Legitimacy & Engagement
created: 2025-11-21
requires: HSP-001
Abstract
This proposal aims to sense community approval before a ratification vote for the NEAR’s House of Stake Code of Conduct, resulting from Co-Creation cycle 1.
House of Stake Code of Conduct
Version: v1.0
Audience: NEAR Community
Archive: Version.0.1.0
Code of Conduct Policy
Code of Conduct
1. Our Pledge
1.1 We, as members, contributors, delegates, moderators, stewards, and other participants of the House of Stake (HoS), pledge to create a governance environment where participation is safe, inclusive, and transparent.
1.2 Commitments:
1.2.1 Act with professionalism, integrity, and respect in all spaces.
1.2.2 Align behavior with NEAR’s long-term interests and ecosystem health.
1.2.3 Protect privacy, safety, and data integrity.
1.2.4 Use technology, including AI, in an ethical, transparent, and accountable way.
1.3 Applicability:
1.3.1 This pledge applies to on-chain decisions, off-chain forums, events, and public representation of HoS.
2. Purpose & Scope
2.1 Purpose:
2.1.1 Ensure a healthy culture of productive participation in achieving House of Stake’s Mission.
2.2 Scope of Application:
2.2.1 On-chain: including but not limited to submission, delegate voting, treasury allocation, multisig participation.
2.2.2 Off-chain: including but not limited to governance forums, Discord, Telegram, GitHub, social media, community calls.
2.2.3 Community & Events: including but not limited to workshops, hackathons, AMAs, partnerships, and DAO-to-DAO representation.
2.2.4 House of Stake participants are by definition all veNEAR token holders and the scope of this Code of Conduct applies to all members and partners, without exception.
2.2.5 House of Stake decisions don’t have competence to rule outside of House of Stake.
2.3 Definitions:
2.3.1 Token-holders: participants with stake or voting rights.
2.3.2 Delegates: participants acting with proxied voting authority.
2.3.3 Moderators: individuals tasked with managing discussion, intake, assessment and enforcement.
2.3.4 Stewards: elected or appointed roles in HoS committees, councils or working groups (including the CoC Appeals Panel).
2.3.5 Contributors: developers, writers, organizers, and others engaged in HoS activities.
2.3.6 Working group members: Appointed or selected individuals tasked with providing various professional services to the community.
2.3.7 Appeals: Mechanism to report and address a violation of this code of conduct.
2.4 Appointment of Stewards
2.4.1 Stewards are currently appointed by NEAR Foundation, until that authority is granted to the House of Stake, which will then appoint them.
3. Values & Standards
3.1 Agreed Behaviors
3.1.1 Act in good faith and perform due diligence before voting or advising.
3.1.2 Make your best effort to resolve disputes or issues privately or with a moderator instead of escalating to public channels.
3.1.3 Disclose conflicts of interest, according to the Conflict of Interest Policy.
3.1.4 Provide clear rationales for governance actions.
3.1.5 Communicate with respect, inclusivity, and professionalism.
3.1.6 Protect the privacy, dignity, and safety of community members.
3.1.7 Collaborate transparently; document decisions; support iterative improvement.
3.2 Prohibited Behaviors
3.2.1 Harassment, bullying, stalking, or identity-based abuse targeting protected characteristics like gender, race, nationality or religion, including synthetic media harassment, impersonation or AI-generated identity manipulation.
3.2.2 Plagiarism, falsification, or misrepresentation of work.
3.2.3 Vote-buying, bribery, or covert influence.
3.2.4 Failure to disclose conflicts of interest.
3.2.5 Doxxing, privacy violations, or unauthorized data exposure.
3.2.6 Spamming, shilling, brigading, disinformation, or sabotage. Including knowingly false or misleading information intended to influence governance outcomes or produce harm to the House of Stake and its members.
3.3 Good Practice Example:
3.3.1 A contributor critiques a proposal respectfully and offers alternatives with evidence.
3.3.2 A contributor is associated by an organization and properly discloses affiliation to understand its influence.
3.3.3 A contributor raises consideration and signals a behavior that can be contrary to the Code of Conduct, following the reporting mechanisms and providing substantial evidence for analysis.
3.4 Bad Practice Example:
3.4.1 A contributor spreads unfounded or unsubstantiated rumors without evidence about an author to discredit their work.
3.4.2 A contributor buys votes or hides affiliation and influence in relation to submitted proposals.
3.4.3 A contributor creates noise in public platforms about behavior subjectively evaluated, not facilitating proof or evidence, nor reporting it to proper instances.
4. Confidentiality & Financial Independence
4.1 Agreed Behaviors
4.1.1 Respect confidentiality and uphold privacy in all processes.
4.1.2 Maintain independence in decision-making; proactively disclose financial or personal interests when relevant.
4.2 Prohibited Behaviors
4.2.1 Disclosing personal information without explicit consent. This includes contact details, physical location, financial data, wallet addresses, or any information that could enable identification, coercion, or reputational harm.
4.2.2 Accepting undisclosed compensation or benefits in relation to governance actions.
4.3 Good Practice Example:
4.3.1 Challenging the value for money of a particular piece of work, based on substantiated evidence.
4.4 Bad Practice Example:
4.4.1 A member speculates publicly about another’s earnings to undermine their credibility.
5. Work Quality, Pace, and Feedback
5.1 Agreed Behaviors
5.1.1 Encourage timely contributions while respecting diverse work rhythms to foster global collaboration through asynchronous coordination.
5.1.2 Provide feedback that is constructive, specific, balanced, and respectful. Constructive feedback is defined as “well communicated, action-oriented, and evidence-based.”
5.1.3 Recognize and credit the efforts of others.
5.1.4 Foster a safe, professional, and supportive environment.
5.1.5 Assess ideas, work and deliverables based on the arguments and evidence that support them, not personal attacks targeting the character, identity, or unrelated attributes of a member.
5.1.6 Provide appropriate feedback based on the stage a piece of work is at.
5.1.7 Give people a fair chance, space and time to do the work and do it well.
5.1.8 Encourage open participation in feedback, creation and execution processes.
5.2 Prohibited Behaviors
5.2.1 Dismissing contributions with superficial or derogatory remarks.
5.2.2 Making baseless criticism without representative evidence.
5.2.3 Undue or hostile pressure to conform to arbitrary work rhythms. Constructive encouragement is acceptable. Accountability and transparency are mandatory, and should be practiced without personal attacks.
5.2.4 Comparisons designed to discredit colleagues based on pace.
5.2.5 Generalized criticism without constructive intent.
5.2.6 Any pressure, speculation, or unconstructive criticism that harms collaboration.
5.2.7 Avoid toxic or hostile criticism disguised as urgency.
5.2.8 intentionally excluding others from participating, obliterating, not attributing or taking over others work.
5.3 Good Practice Example:
5.3.1 A reviewer highlights strengths and specific improvements with constructive feedback and actionable suggestions.
5.4 Bad Practice Example:
5.4.1 A member mocks another as “lazy” or “too slow” without understanding size, complexity, dependencies, review processes, etc. that a piece of work may need to go through.
6. Reporting & Intake
6.1.1 Anyone who experiences or witnesses a potential violation is encouraged to report it as described below.
6.1.2 Moderators will also pro-actively monitor for violations and process those on behalf of the community.
6.1.3 AI moderation tools are considered key in achieving a neutral, objective, and human-enhanced environment.
6.1.4 Member’s feedback is objectively processed without ad hominem criteria, meaning feedback is taken by what is being communicated, and not by who is communicating it, to protect minority voices from being labeled.
6.2 Reporting Channels
6.2.1 Confidential Code of Conduct complaint form with option to submit anonymously (official HoS portal).
6.2.2 Email: info@houseofstake.org (alternative submission if needed).
6.2.3 Direct contact with the current Community & Moderation team at events or in community channels or calls. Including Head of Governance (HoG), Councils, Committees, and Panels.
6.3 Intake & Triage
6.3.1 Acknowledgement of received complaint by the Community and Moderation team, this includes explaining what action they will take.
6.3.2 Urgency assessment within 48 Business hours to address immediate risks to safety or governance integrity.
6.3.3 Confidential handling; reporter identities protected where possible.
6.3.4 Detect abuse of process (e.g., repeated malicious or false reports) is a violation.
6.4 Good Practice Example:
6.4.1 A member reports a prohibited behavior with timestamps and supporting evidence.
6.4.2 A minority flags a violation to the Code of Conduct from a high reputation member, with substantial evidence.
6.5 Bad Practice Example:
6.5.1 A member files repeated false reports to harass another participant.
6.5.2 A member complains that they are being signaled or excluded, but do not provide solid evidence.
7. Moderation Standards
7.1 Impartiality: moderators must have no conflicts of interest.
7.2 Cultural and linguistic competence: include moderators who understand the parties’ context.
7.3 Documentation: maintain secure records, a clear evidence trail, and access controls.
7.4 Timeliness: target resolution within 14 calendar days; document and communicate extensions.
7.5 AI oversight: AI-powered tools may assist with triage or pattern detection; humans make final decisions.
7.6 Evidence standards: use verifiable records (e.g., logs, messages, transactions) and note limitations.
7.7 Objectivity and Fairness: Once documents are ratified, they become legitimate and auditable standards.
7.8 Hermeneutics: written content could be understood or interpreted differently, and clarification or appeals are a possibility for checks and balances.
7.9 Good Practice Example:
Assign moderators from outside the immediate dispute to ensure impartiality.
7.10 Bad Practice Example:
Allowing a conflicted delegate to oversee a case involving their own committee.
8. Enforcement & Remedies
8.1 Principles: proportionality, predictability, and restoration where feasible.
8.1.2 Restorative approaches and capacity building after violations of the Code of Conduct can be implemented by Negotiation, Mediation, and arbitration, as enforcement mechanisms.
8.1.3 Education about Appeals process and criteria for severity and escalation of sanctions are to be developed to improve predictability, by future proposals on this matter.
8.2 Feedback
8.2.1 Observation: first, minor or potential violation.
8.2.2 Consequence: private or public feedback, at Moderator’s discretion.
8.2.3 Repair: acknowledgement, clarification, improvement in behaviour.
8.3 Warning
8.3.1 Observation: feedback ignored or serious violation.
8.3.2 Consequence: private or public written notice with requested changes.
8.3.3 Repair: apology, acknowledgement, or clarification including amendments, removal of content or restorative practices.
8.4 Temporary Restriction
8.4.1 Observation: repeated or significant violation.
8.4.2 Consequence: time-bound restriction or suspension from channels or roles. Which can apply even while cases are being analyzed.
8.4.3 Repair: reflection, mediation and a plan for corrective steps with conditions for return defined.
8.5 Permanent Ban
8.5.1 Observation: severe violation undermining safety, governance integrity or legitimacy.
8.5.2 Consequence: removal from all governance spaces (on-chain and off-chain) to the greatest extent possible, including mitigating, reducing, or reversing financial damage when possible.
8.5.3 Repair: not applicable; reserved for irreparable breaches of trust.
8.6 Proportionality Factors
Moderators will exercise judgement on the level of remedies based on intent, impact, prior history, cooperation, and community safety.
9. Appeals Process
9.1 Appeals body: Has at least 3 independent members, rotating annually with no conflicts of interest. The Appeals body composition and its selection process will be defined outside of scope of this proposal.
9.2 Criteria: temporary restrictions and permanent bans can be appealed based upon new evidence (logs, screenshots, transaction records), a claim of misinterpreted evidence, procedural error or disproportionate sanctions.
9.3 Timeframe: submit within 14 days; decision within 30 days.
9.4 Submission: encrypted form or direct email to the Panel’s published contact.
9.5 Finality: Panel decisions are binding, subject to community ratification in exceptional cases. Escalation to Screening Committee could be requested.
9.6 Good Practice Example:
A sanctioned member submits new logs that change the assessment; sanction reduced.
Evidence shared is objective and within scope. (logs, screenshots, transaction records)
9.7 Bad Practice Example:
Multiple frivolous appeals filed to delay enforcement.
Evidence shared is out of scope or subjective. (Behavior signaled is outside of HoS, biased claims, faulty evidence)
10. Risk Disclosures & Limitations
10.1 Enforcement capacity depends on moderator resources and jurisdictional constraints.
10.2 On-chain actions may be irreversible; remedies cannot fully counteract immutability.
10.3 This CoC complements applicable law; it does not replace legal rights or obligations.
10.4 Jurisdictional differences may require tailored measures while upholding core principles.
10.5 Applicable jurisdiction for legal purposes is Cayman Island.
11. Transparency & Governance Oversight
11.1 All reports, evidence, decisions, feedback and enforcement actions are logged in an auditable but privacy-preserving way.
11.2 Annual reports summarize cases, categories, timelines, outcomes, and reforms (respecting privacy where required).
11.3 Committees overseeing this CoC maintain a public change log and explain major policy updates.
11.4 Moderation team discloses their affiliations, incentives and responsibilities to reduce conflicts of interest.
11.5 Oversight to all governance actors should be done by responsible bodies ensuring accountability and checks and balances. This is done working in sync with all HoS institutions and ruling documents.
11.6 NEAR Foundation is accountable for moderation of its ecosystem’s platforms, including the House of Stake’s.
12. Contact & Amendments
12.1 Contact: info@houseofstake.org.
12.2 Amendments: updates follow a public notice and versioning process with a “Last Updated” date.
12.3 Effective Date: this CoC takes effect upon community ratification and remains in force until amended.
12.4 A minimum public comment period of 7 days is required prior to version adoption of this document, based on Art. 6.1.1 of the interim constitution.
END OF CODE OF CONDUCT POLICY V0.2.0
Context & Alignment
- [HSP‑001] defines Sensing as the way to gauge community sentiment prior to binding action; this proposal aims to confirm readiness to ratify the interim CoC.
- The CoC v0.2 specifies reporting channels (confidential form, email), moderation standards (impartiality, documentation, competence, human‑overseen AI), appeals timelines, auditable logging, and a minimum 7‑day public comment period for future versions, as well as proposed next steps for operationalization.
Situation
- What problem are we solving?
Enabling Immediate Governance: This version brings up an initial set of guidelines and approaches that once ratified, establish legitimate rules and boundaries for human behavior in NEAR’s House of Stake. Providing a “good‑enough” baseline that can be adopted and tested for future updates and complimentary proposals.
- What happens if we don’t address it?
The House of Stake Community and its Moderators won’t have the tools to actually take care of the health of the social layer. HoS needs predictable norms to reduce friction and increase legitimacy. Waiting for a “perfect” policy risks more disorder than adopting a good baseline and improving it with evidence gathered from real use.
If we do nothing. Ad‑hoc moderation persists; incident handling is inconsistent; coordination costs and reputational/legal risks rise; and legitimacy and participation suffer.
Mission
Ensure a healthy culture of productive participation in achieving House of Stake’s Mission, Vission & Values.
Objectives: Enabling specific rule testing: This vote is a prior step ahead of a formal ratification vote, that would legitimate a first version (V1.0.0) of NEAR’s House of Stake Code of Conduct.
Outcomes: Clearly defining rules and boundaries: Establishing legitimate shared agreements for interacting and managing conduct of agents inside NEAR’s House of Stake.
Approach
A Code of Conduct should be voted on and approved by the community before May 31st, 2026. Which is the ratification deadline for the interim policy set.
What strategy will we use?
If this sensing proposal approved, the next step would be a ratification vote.
What are the risks and limitations?
The risks of not having a Code of Conduct ratified in the community is delaying the development of this, and further foundational policies needed for House of Stake planned functioning and modular evolution.
Technical Specification
Once ratified, this Code of Conduct will be stored in House of Stake documentation, taking effect and remaining in force until amended.
Backwards Compatibility
Although no protocol or contract changes and no on‑chain parameters are affected. It is important to note the compatibility with foundational governance assets -such as the Constitution & policy Charters.
This CoC directly supports Operationalizacion of following constitutional articles.
- Article 4. Institutions.
- Article 5. Integrity, Conflicts of Interest, and Accountability.
- Article 6. Legislative Procedure.
- Article 11. Interpretation & Dispute Resolution.
As a final remark on backwards compatibility, this CoC builds on NEAR Foundation’s Community Guidelines and NEAR Community Etiquette by encoding accountable, auditable governance behavior through clearly defined good/bad practice examples, transparent reporting duties, and a basis for an appeals framework.
Milestones
| Milestone | Target Date | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| Successful Sensing Proposal followed by a Decision Proposal | Q4 2025 | Decision vote succeeds with a simple majority of votes cast |
| Operationalization of Code of Conduct and Next steps | Q1 2026 | At least 1 implementation proposal |
Key Performance Indicators
| KPI | Source of truth | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Awareness and training. | Educational activities on the Code of Conduct and organizational policy set. | At least 3 Workshops and 1 blog post communicating organizational structure. |
| Culture & trust indicators. | Perception of ethics, wellbeing, and fairness (annual survey). | Baseline set before May 31st 2026 (Goal of 70% approval) |
| Operationalization & Continuous improvement. | High performing human and AI-augmented operations; an expression of the “co-operate” component of House of Stake’s Mission Vision and Values. | Integration of CoC with AI-Augmented tooling. Development on a proof of concept app: Pulse has already begun. |
| Performance efficiency. | Registry of cases reported, solved, and actions taken. | 66% of success in de-escalating and solving issues in stated times. |
Budget & Resources
| Item | Amount | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 0 Ⓝ | This proposal does not request budget or resources for its implementation. |
Reporting: A progress report will be published before 31st May 2026, along with proposed amends or updates to match with additional ratified policy set.
No funding is requested in this Sensing HSP. If the interim ratification proceeds, follow‑up proposals may request resources to operate reporting, moderation, appeals, transparency, and education.
Implementation
Contact and intake
- Confidential CoC reporting form on the official House of Stake website with anonymous option, clear privacy notice, and attachment support.
- Email: activate info@houseofstake.org.
- Replace the draft CoC in House of Stake documentation with the ratified version.
- Add links to the Code of Conduct to House of Stake telegram group, House of Stake Forum, gov.houseofstake.org voting platform, and community calls as agreements for participation.
Moderation and appeals
- Independent body of at least 3 members with rotation and recusal rules. To be developed post ratification.
AI assistance
- Testing AI-powered tooling in development, for case management and moderation.
Feedback collection
- After implementation, Continuous feedback will be collected by Hack Humanity through workshops, forms, and analysis of governance performance, to update the CoC (when and if needed).
Data protection
- Data logging and confidentiality from case summaries; strict access controls.
Team & Accountability
- Responsible: To set up, develop & monitor: @HackHumanity — service provider hired by NEAR Foundation. To avoid conflicts of interest, no Hack Humanity members will participate in moderation or appeals.
- Accountable to: Near Foundation, House of Stake, Screening Committee, Head of Governance.
Security Considerations
What are the security implications of this proposal?
- Privacy preserving. A risk is that the authorized body to review cases fails to preserve privacy, strategic confidentiality, and due diligence for cases managed. To mitigate that risk, roles must be made accountable.
- AI black box and hallucination. Humans have final authority, and all AI‑assisted steps must be auditable for appeals.
Conflict of Interest
The proposer has read and agrees to the CoC. Hack Humanity is a hired service provider and will not serve in moderation or appeals.
Copyright
Copyright and related rights waived via CC0 1.0.
Authorship & Acknowledgements
Authored by: @humbertobesso and @juankbell from @HackHumanity
Review and feedback from: @klausbrave, @disruptionjoe, @dancunningham, @haenko, @lane, @AK_HoG