Hi @Griff
Thank you for reviewing the docs and sharing these comments. They are thoughtful and helpful, and we agree they should be clarified before the vote closes.
These Constitutional Documents are meant to support a credible path of progressive decentralization: one that works with current legal, technical, and operational realities, while moving House of Stake toward greater autonomy over time. The goal is to build a governance system that can operate responsibly now, earn legitimacy through good decisions, and evolve to better serve the NEAR ecosystem.
Jurisdiction - what NEAR House of Stake governs
The Bylaws and the Memorandum of Association and Articles of the Association define the legal structure, the Administrative Budget Wallet, and the boundaries of House of Stake authority.
Under the current framework, the community can submit proposals on:
- Ecosystem grants
- Governance changes
- Technology upgrades
- Operational budgets
- Delegate issues
These areas are reinforced by the current Mandate, giving House of Stake a broad but defined scope, including governing funds transferred to the NEAR House of Stake Foundation and initiatives such as programs funded by protocol emissions. Passed proposals define governance intent, but execution remains subject to the Bylaws and related legal documents, including the authority of NHoS Foundation Directors to decline implementation where a proposal would be unlawful or materially harmful.
The Mandate also sets clear limits. House of Stake does not currently have an open-ended grants program and does not claim full technical governance of the NEAR Protocol or major products such as Chain Signatures, NEAR Intents, or NEAR AI.
Additionally, the House of Stake is in the early stages of establishing its own active treasury, following the successful vote to transfer assets from the NEAR Community Purpose Trust.
Today, the Mandate is set by NEAR Foundation. The intended direction is for House of Stake to set its own Mandate over time. Until then, the system depends on House of Stake making good decisions that strengthen its legitimacy and incentivize broader community authority.
MVV & AI Governance
We tried to develop the idea that the ultimate goal of AI in augmenting governance processes is to serve humans. As the AI governance roadmap progresses, agent participation can expand in a more meaningful way to reduce human overhead.
We made this call considering both the enthusiasm for, and the cautions against AI governance that were expressed in the responses to the first iteration of the MVV.
This is typical of the kind of balance we have sought in various places in the Constitutional Docs, between addressing current concerns and creating documents that will not need constant updating.
Emergency Overrides
Yes, the Emergency Override provision is aligned with the NEAR House of Stake Foundation Bylaws, and the current PVP was drafted to align with that legal structure.
The threshold is intentionally high because it applies to an exceptional power: overriding Security Council emergency authority. If the community later concludes that this standard is too hard to meet to function as a credible safeguard, the proper path would be to amend the legal documents and the PVP together.
COIP & Enforcement
The Code of Conduct and the Conflict of Interest Policy are designed to work together.
The COIP is principle-based and centered on disclosure. In a permissionless, privacy-preserving system like NEAR House of Stake, enforcement and even detection can be very difficult. The House of Stake is guided by the principle that policies should only be introduced where meaningful enforcement is possible, in support of transparent and credible governance. For that reason, the framework combines disclosure expectations, role-based accountability, Code of Conduct enforcement, and formal dispute-resolution mechanisms.
For governance-related roles, expectations are stronger, and undisclosed conflicts can lead to removal from a role. For other participants, disclosure remains an expected standard of conduct, and misconduct can still be addressed through the broader enforcement framework in the Code of Conduct, including graduated sanctions.
So on this point, we agree with the principle behind your comment: undisclosed conflicts should have consequences. Our view is that the current bundle already provides that consequence layer across the different documents.
We hope these answers are helpful for you and the rest of the community!