HSP-013: NEAR House of Stake Code of Conduct

Frontmatter

hsp: 013
title: NEAR House of Stake Code of Conduct
description: Establishes standards for behavior within House of Stake
author: Hack Humanity
discussions-to: https://gov.near.org/t/hsp-013-near-house-of-stake-code-of-conduct/42050
status: Review
track: Decision
type: Simple majority
category: Legitimacy & Engagement
stakeholders: See section "Stakeholders"
created: 2026-02-16
requires: No dependencies

Abstract

Proposal for Version: v1.0
Audience: NEAR Community
Archive: Version 0.1.0

This proposal adopts the Code of Conduct v1.0 for NEAR House of Stake.

The Code of Conduct establishes standards for behavior within NEAR House of Stake. It defines expected and prohibited conduct, reporting and enforcement pathways, moderation standards, and an internal appeals mechanism applicable to governance-related activity.

The expected outcome of ratifying this Code of Conduct is a predictable, transparent, and proportionate framework for behavioral accountability that protects governance, Stakeholder safety, and legitimate participation across House of Stake activities.

Payload

NEAR House of Stake Code of Conduct

NEAR House of Stake Code of Conduct

Article 1. Purpose and Scope

1.1 This Code of Conduct establishes the standards of behavior expected of all Stakeholders in the NEAR House of Stake.

1.2 The objectives of this Code are to promote a safe, respectful, and effective governance environment, to protect the integrity and legitimacy of governance processes, and to support the long-term interests of the NEAR ecosystem.

1.3 This Code applies to all Stakeholders when engaging in activities related to NEAR House of Stake, including participating in onchain and off-chain governance, and community-related events, whether virtually or in person.

1.4 This Code is a governance and Stakeholder standards document. It does not create legal rights or obligations and operates subject to the NEAR House of Stake constitutional framework and applicable legal documents.

Article 2. Expected Conduct for All Stakeholders

2.1 All Stakeholders are expected to act in good faith and with honest intent when engaging in NEAR House of Stake activities. They should:

2.1.2 Treat others with professionalism, dignity, and respect, including during disagreement or dispute.

2.1.3 Engage constructively in governance discussions and decision-making processes.

2.1.4 Communicate clearly, responsibly, and without intent to mislead.

2.1.5 Respect the privacy, safety, and personal boundaries of others.

2.1.6 Follow established governance processes and respect finalized governance outcomes.

2.1.7 Avoid behavior that undermines trust, safety, or the integrity of governance.

2.1.8 Disclose conflicts of interest following the assessment outlined in the Conflict of Interest Policy.

Article 3. Additional Expectations for Governance-Related Roles

3.1 Governance Body Members, Endorsed Delegates, Moderators, HSP Authors and other governance-related roles are held to a higher standard due to their influence and responsibilities within the NEAR House of Stake. They shall:

3.1.2 Exercise due care and diligence when advising, voting, or allocating resources.

3.1.3 Disclose conflicts of interest fully, accurately, and in a timely manner, in accordance with the Conflict of Interest Policy.

3.1.4 Represent their authority, mandate, endorsement status, or decision-making power according to Foundation Legal Documents and House of Stake Constitutional Documents.

3.1.5 Provide clear and honest rationales for governance decisions where reasonably expected.

3.1.6 Act as stewards of the long-term interests of the NEAR ecosystem.

3.1.7 Use privileged access, information, or influence responsibly and in good faith.

3.1.8 Process Stakeholder feedback without ad hominem criteria, meaning feedback is taken by what is being communicated, and not by who is communicating it.

Article 4. Prohibited Conduct

4.1 Harassment, bullying, intimidation, or threats.

4.2 Discriminatory or hateful conduct based on protected characteristics like gender, race, nationality, or religion, including synthetic media harassment.

4.3 Impersonation or misrepresentation of identity, authority, or affiliation.

4.4 Vote-buying, bribery, coercion, or covert influence over governance outcomes.

4.5 Doxxing, privacy invasion, or unauthorized disclosure of personal or sensitive information publicly.

4.6 Spam, brigading, shilling, disinformation, or deliberate sabotage of governance processes.

4.7 Retaliation against individuals who, in good faith, raise concerns or report potential prohibited conduct.

4.8 Knowingly false, malicious, or bad-faith reports, including attempts to weaponize this Code to harass or silence others, may themselves constitute prohibited conduct.

Article 5. Reporting and Enforcement

5.1 Platform Moderators are the first enforcers of this Code.

5.2 NEAR Foundation, NEAR House of Stake Foundation, or the Head of Governance may appoint Moderators, as part of progressive decentralization towards full autonomy of NEAR House of Stake. They may also remove them by applying the principles of Removal for Cause, as provided in the Constitution.

5.3 Any participant who experiences or witnesses a potential prohibited conduct in relation to this Code of Conduct is encouraged to use the platform-specific flagging systems or report it through the code of conduct complaint form in the House of Stake documentation. No other reporting mechanisms are considered valid.

5.4 Reports shall be made in good faith and, where reasonably possible, include relevant context or supporting evidence.

5.5 This Code may be addressed through proportionate and reasonable enforcement actions intended to protect Stakeholder safety and governance integrity.

5.6 Enforcement actions may include warnings, requests for corrective action, temporary restrictions, suspensions, or removal from roles or governance participation.

5.7 Onchain actions may be irreversible, and remedies cannot fully counteract the effects of immutable or third-party systems.

Article 6. Appeals Process

6.1 To escalate conflicting situations for review, a temporary and case-limited Appeals Panel may be created by the Head of Governance to resolve disputes.

6.2 Appeals shall be submitted within the next 14 days of the appealed event, for a decision to be expected 30 days after the case is reported to the complaint form in the NEAR House of Stake Documentation.

6.3 Decisions from the appeals process are final for internal governance coordination purposes only and do not limit or override any rights, obligations, or Dispute Resolution Mechanisms that exist under the Foundation Legal Documents or applicable law.

Article 7. Moderation and Enforcement Standards

7.1 Due Diligence

7.1.1 Impartiality: case Moderators must disclose no conflicts of interest.

7.1.2 Cultural and linguistic competence: include Moderators who understand the parties’ context.

7.1.3 Documentation: maintain secure records, a clear evidence trail, and access controls.

7.1.4 Timeliness: target resolution within 14 calendar days; document and communicate extensions.

7.1.5 AI oversight: AI-powered tools may assist with triage or pattern detection; humans make final decisions.

7.1.6 Evidence standards: use verifiable records (e.g., logs, messages, transactions) and note limitations.

7.2 Authority Limitations

7.2.1 Moderators shall act based on available information and exercise judgment solely within the scope of this Code of Conduct.

7.2.2 This Code of Conduct shall be interpreted and applied with proportionality, fairness, and common sense. Any enforcement of this code shall be exercised in good faith, prioritizing Stakeholder safety and governance integrity.

7.2.3 To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, neither the NEAR House of Stake Foundation, the NEAR House of Stake, Moderators, Appeals Panel members, nor any Governance Body shall be liable for any indirect, incidental, consequential, reputational, or economic loss arising from participation in, reliance upon, or enforcement of this Code of Conduct, including any good-faith act or omission.

END OF THE NEAR HOUSE OF STAKE CODE OF CONDUCT

Context

NEAR House of Stake operates under a governance framework composed of binding Foundation Legal Documents and Constitutional Documents adopted by Tokenholders.

The previous Code of Conduct HSP-005 was rejected by the Screening Committee because it proposed the creation of an “appeals panel”. The HSP authors (Hack Humanity) received feedback to make changes and resubmit the proposal, removing actions that may incur governance debt. For the nature of changes made, this version is submitted as a new HSP.

This Code of Conduct was co-created through several cycles of feedback from multiple Stakeholder groups -including NEAR Forum Moderators, NEAR Foundation Legal, and core House of Stake members based on the co-created version 0.1.0.

Problem

Without a formally adopted Code of Conduct, standards governing participant behavior, moderation practices, and dispute handling rely on fragmented guidance, interim documentation, or discretionary practice.

As a result, Moderators lack operational guidelines, and governance activities are exposed to ambiguity in behavioral expectations, inconsistent enforcement, contested legitimacy of moderation outcomes, and elevated coordination and reputational risks. These gaps undermine trust, increase friction, and weaken the coherence of the overall governance framework.

Approach

The Code of Conduct operates in compliance with the Foundation Legal Documents and under the authority of the House of Stake Constitution.

The approach taken is to define clear standards and internal coordination mechanisms, while deliberately avoiding legal rights, contractual obligations, fiduciary duties, or due-process entitlements.

The Code of Conduct is designed to be operable within current institutional capacity and to provide a stable baseline that may be amended over time through the Proposals and Voting Procedures as progressive decentralization increases in the House of Stake.

End-to-end Value Hypothesis

On a standalone basis, this proposal delivers full value by establishing a clear, auditable framework for behavioral expectations and internal accountability for participation in the House of Stake.

All essential standards governing conduct, moderation, enforcement, and appeals are specified within the Code of Conduct itself, while authority boundaries, interpretation, and amendment mechanisms are governed by other applicable NEAR House of Stake governance documents, including but not limited to the Constitution and the Proposals and Voting Procedures.

Objective

Establish the ratified Code of Conduct for NEAR House of Stake.

Outcome

Following ratification, two outcomes are expected:

  1. Participants in House of Stake engage under a shared, transparent set of behavioral standards that support safe, respectful, and effective governance coordination.

  2. Governance bodies and moderators legitimately reference the Code of Conduct, as the participation rules within NEAR House of Stake.

Dependencies

This proposal depends on NEAR House of Stake Constitutional Documents.

It also depends on technical and governance mechanisms already deployed in NEAR.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Not applicable to this proposal.

Technical Specification

No software code, smart contract logic, or protocol-level changes are introduced by this proposal.

Backwards Compatibility

The Code of Conduct does not override or amend the authority of the Foundation’s Legal Documents, explicitly deferring to them in the event of a conflict.

This proposal is compatible with prior interim governance documents.

Security Considerations

No security considerations identified.

Stakeholders

Activity / Decision Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed
Moderation and enforcement Moderators Moderators Governance bodies NEAR forum
Appeals and internal review Moderators Head of Governance Appeals panel NEAR forum

Implementation Plan

Definition of Done of this proposal is achieved when:

  1. The Code of Conduct’s payload is published in the House of Stake Documentation.
  2. The reporting mechanisms stated in this Code of Conduct are set to function, meaning that:
    • The code of conduct complaint form is created.
    • The form is live in the House of Stake Documentation.
    • Moderators have the credentials and know-how to operate the form.

Milestones

Once ratified and published, the Code of Conduct comes into and remains in effect until amended.

Budget & Resources

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

The author of this proposal is @HackHumanity, which is contracted by NEAR Foundation including for the implementation of this proposal.

The production of this proposal is consistent with Hack Humanity’s engagement in facilitating the Governance Transition Program. To avoid any potential conflict of interest, Hack Humanity and its team members will either not vote, or vote abstain on this proposal.

Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via CC0 1.0.

Authorship & Acknowledgment

Authored by: @humbertobesso, @juankbell, @klausbrave, and @danrandow from @HackHumanity.
Review and feedback from: @klausbrave, @AK_HoG, @lane, Bianca Guimaraes (NEAR Foundation Legal), @haenko

1 Like

Code of Conduct (CoC) – Change Report (HSP-XXX v1.0)

Thank you to all the community members who participated in workshops and provided feedback on the Forum, as well as the Head of Governance, Screening Committee reviewers, and NEAR Foundation contributors who shaped this document. Special thanks to Bianca Guimaraes-Chadwick (NF Legal) for the legal-style consolidation draft and discussions.

Executive Summary

This Code of Conduct evolved from an HSP-format proposal [HSP-005] that was not advanced to a sensing vote, with multiple comments that shaped a new version, that was then reviewed by NEAR Foundation Legal, to incorporate final suggestions and reach the consolidated version here proposed (HSP-XXX v1.0), which is designed to be enforceable immediately without deferring value to future proposals. For the nature of changes made, this version is submitted as a new HSP.

The CoC feedback log contains 108 entries, of which 61 were adopted or partially adopted (~66%) based on the spreadsheet’s “Action Taken” field. The log reflects a mix of community workshops, moderator focus groups, GitHub/forum input, and internal drafting resolutions.

A key inflection point was the Screening Committee feedback that deferred HSP-005, because it led to addressing undefined topics and improving the CoC to deliver full end-to-end standalone value.


Key Changes in this version

Changes can be grouped into three primary themes:

1. Removing Governance Debt by the Code of Conduct Operable during progressive decentralization

A core change from HSP-005 to the final CoC is eliminating the “define later” approach to moderation and appeals that was explicitly flagged as insufficiently specified. (NEAR Forum)

This is reflected by:

  • Proposing an immediately usable appeals pathway, where a temporary, case-limited Appeals Panel can be created by the Head of Governance for specific disputes.
  • Covering moderation/enforcement standards so enforcement can function with installed capacity.
  • Including the Head of Governance within the appointers and removers of moderators, as progressive decentralization advances.

2. Converting a Broad, Values-Heavy Draft Into a Rule-Based, Operational Standard

HSP-005 included broad pledge/values and expansive definitions with examples (NEAR Forum). The consolidated CoC shifts toward a tighter structure that reads as enforceable governance rules that:

  • Reduce ambiguity by expressing the CoC primarily as “what is expected / prohibited” plus “how reporting/enforcement works,” rather than mixing policy narrative, examples, and future operational plans into the core text.

3. Strengthening Standards for Governance-Related Roles

The CoC preserves the idea that role-holders carry higher expectations, but expresses it as a practical governance constraint:

  • Governance body members, delegates, moderators, and other role-holders are held to higher standards due to their influence.
  • Disclosure of conflict of interest is placed as expected conduct for all stakeholders, with the Conflict of Interest Policy being enforceable to governance Body Members.

Conclusion

The final CoC v1.0 is shaped around a single execution goal: make behavioral accountability workable from day one. Compared to the earlier HSP-005 approach that deferred key mechanisms. The consolidated version improves readability, establishes clearer rules, clearer enforcement pathways, and practical moderation standards while remaining amendable as House of Stake governance matures.

2 Likes

This is absolutely nonsense keeping in mind progressive decentralization.

HOG is NF employee.

How afraid of free speech must the Near Foundation be if it’s even writing into the Code of Conduct its right to appoint moderators?

Looks like the frogs have settled in here too.

Thank you so much, @HackHumanity for the updated Code of Conduct. This version shows a significant shift toward a leaner, more focused governance framework that is moving in the right direction of progressive governance. It also avoids over-complication and ease of understanding by the community.

I do have a question regarding the Complaint Form/process (Article 5.3):

  • This proposal states the form lives in the “Documentation.” While the content of a report should be private to protect participants, the process must be visible. If a report is submitted, how does the community know it has been received and under review?

One suggestion is to have a public log that shows, “date”, “category of violation”, “status: Pending/In-review/Closed”, and “outcome”. This ensures every report is accounted for without compromising privacy.

2 Likes

This is a useful idea @coffee-crusher we can consider. It’s an implementation detail we can solve operationally - imo it does not require updating of the proposal text.

3 Likes

Great! and agreed, regarding it’s more of an operational process/guide that could be created (even if it’s just very simple) to help the participants in the role.

3 Likes

This Proposal has been updated to Simple majority voting threshold according to the Screening Committee Review and recommendations, Hack Humanity’s response is here:

2 Likes

Update: HSP-013 — House of Stake Code of Conduct Ratified

We are pleased to confirm that the proposal has successfully completed the full ratification process:

With all required steps completed, HSP-013 is now officially ratified and in force , replacing all interim versions.

The House of Stake policies are available here:

1 Like