NEAR House of Stake Conflict of Interest Policy – Change Report
Executive Summary
The Conflict of Interest Policy v1.0 evolves the v0.3 version, aligning it with the ratifiable House of Stake Constitutional Documents.
Version 0.3 introduced a structured matrix-based framework, detailed examples, and internal enforcement procedures. The final version (v1.0) preserves the core purpose-protecting the legitimacy of House of Stake governance-while simplifying structure, clarifying scope, relocating enforcement mechanisms to the appropriate Constitutional Documents, and shifting from prescriptive rules to principle-based guidance.
Strategic Impact of Key Changes
1. Clarifying Scope and Enforcement Boundaries
Version 0.3 applied broadly to Delegates, community members, and individuals influencing decisions, and included its own enforcement and disciplinary provisions.
Version 1.0 clarifies that:
- Governance Body Members and Endorsed Delegates are bound to the Policy through Constitutional Documents that reference it.
- Enforcement mechanisms are defined in the Constitution (e.g. Removal for Cause) rather than recreated within the Policy itself.
- The Policy is especially designed for Governance Body Members and Endorsed Delegates. The intention is to formally apply the Conflict of Interest Policy to the roles that are have enforceability, and for the remaining Stakeholders make it an expected behavior, and expected behaviours are in the Code of Conduct.
2. Replacing the 2x2 Matrix and Traffic-Light System with a Unified Decision Flow
Version 0.3 relied on a 2x2 matrix distinguishing between actual and perceived conflicts, combined with a traffic-light model and extensive scenario examples.
Version 1.0 replaces that structure with:
- A single Core Principle defining conflict as a benefit not proportionally available to other Stakeholders.
- A Quick Assessment with self-evaluation questions.
- Assessment Factors focusing on the nature and magnitude of benefit.
- Examples will be explored in a supplementary guide.
This shift removes quadrant classification and color-coded categories, replacing them with a judgment-based framework centered on proportionality and ecosystem legitimacy.
3. Shifting from Mandatory Recusal Rules to Disclosure as the Primary Mechanism
Version 0.3 required disclosure and recusal in defined categories and included procedural instructions for the recusal process.
Version 1.0 establishes:
- Disclosure is the primary action when a conflict is identified.
- Participation guidance framed around whether continued involvement would harm or serve the decision process.
- A preference for transparency (“When in doubt, disclose”) rather than automatic abstention.
This reflects a move away from prescriptive behavioral mandates toward a principle-based standard.
The focus is now strictly on identifying, disclosing, and managing conflicts, while leaving enforcement and procedural consequences to the Constitution and Code of Conduct.
4. Refining Definitions and Removing Ambiguous Triggers
Version 0.3 defined conflicts in relation to interests that “improperly influence, or appear to influence” decisions and treated perceived conflicts as a primary axis of classification.
Version 1.0:
- Removes the “improperly influence” phrasing.
- Does not treat perceived conflict as a separate automatic category.
- Grounds identification in proportionality and ecosystem legitimacy.
- Routes uncertainty into disclosure rather than categorical recusal.
This reduces definitional ambiguity and avoids the need to interpret subjective concepts such as “appearance” or “improper influence.”
Conclusion
The Conflict of Interest Policy v1.0 is a concise, principle-based standard centered on proportionality, disclosure, and legitimacy.