HSP-XXX: Establish House of Stake Operational & Proposal Co-Funding Budget for 2026

House of Stake Proposals
1

Frontmatter

hsp: TBD
title: Establish House of Stake Operational & Proposal Co-Funding Budget for 2026
description: Defines the operational budget required for House of Stake to function as an independent Treasury Governance Engine, covering infrastructure, legal, compliance, and execution capabilities.
author: House of Stake Head of Governance
discussions-to: TBD
status: Draft
track: Decision
type: Simple Majority
category: Operations
stakeholders: NEAR tokenholders, House of Stake Foundation, proposal authors and stakeholders, NEAR Foundation, NEAR ecosystem
created: 2026-05-04
requires: House of Stake 2.0 Mandate Update , House of Stake Constitutional Documents and House of Stake Foundation legal documents

Abstract

This proposal establishes the operational budget for House of Stake Season #1 (April–December 2026), enabling it to function as an independent governance institution and NEAR’s Treasury Governance Engine.
The budget focuses on infrastructure, legal, compliance, and execution capabilities, ensuring that House of Stake can operate securely, transparently, and effectively.
It does not include costs for personell, shared software licenses and any other cost items not listed in this proposal.
These costs have not been subject of a tokenholder vote and will continue to be covered by NEAR Foundation.

Budget Overview (Season #1, April–Dec 2026)

All figures in USD ($’000).

Operational Budget:
$460.75
Contingency Buffer: $150.00 (variable, bound to spending rules and approvals, see Buffer & Risk Management, Allocation Rules)
Co-Funding Pool: up to $500.00 (programmatic, based on tokenholder vote, see HoS Skin-in-the-Game (Co-Funding Pool))

Upon approval, this proposal authorizes the Head of Governance and the House of Stake Foundation:

  • to deploy Operational Budget as outlined in this proposal
  • to deploy Buffer Funds based on the policies defined in section Buffer & Risk Management, Allocation Rules.
  • to deploy funds in the Co-Funding Pool based on separate tokenholder votes on upcoming proposals in Season #1, according to section HoS Skin-in-the-Game (Co-Funding Pool).

Any unused funds at the end of Season #1 will remain in House of Stake’s treasury.

Context

House of Stake is entering its next phase: becoming an independent institution responsible for governing NEAR’s economic policy and treasury.
To fulfill this role, House of Stake must transition into a fully operational governance system, capable of managing treasury flows, executing decisions, ensuring compliance, and operating securely.

With this transition, House of Stake will also introduce skin in the game through a co-funding pool, aligning its own treasury with the outcomes of governance decisions.

Problem

House of Stake currently lacks its own dedicated operational infrastructure and budget.
Without this:

  • Governance decisions cannot be reliably executed
  • Treasury operations remain dependent on NEAR Foundation
  • Legal and compliance risks increase
  • Transparency and accountability are limited

Approach

This proposal establishes a minimum viable operational budget for Season #1.
It focuses on:

  • Infrastructure over team expansion
  • Efficiency over duplication
  • Execution capability over complexity

To set up House of Stake in a lean, cost-efficient manner, we will continue to leverage NEAR Foundation software and infrastructure where appropriate, avoiding duplication and unnecessary costs, while maintaining functional independence. (see section Team & Accountability, Implementation Notes)

End-to-end Value Hypothesis

Objective

  • Start establishing independent infrastructure in a lean, cost efficient way
  • Enable reliable execution
  • Ensure compliance and security

Outcome

  • Lean governance institution
  • Spending discipline
  • Executable decisions
  • Functional Independence
  • Transparent reporting

Dependencies on pending/upcoming proposals

  • Any allocation of funds in the Co-Funding pool requires a separate tokenholder vote on the respective funding proposal (see section HoS Skin-in-the-Game (Co-Funding Pool))

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

KPIs:

- Execution Reliability: ≥95% of voting processes completed end-to-end on schedule; with financing and ops support in place.
- Transparency: 100% of required reports published in full and on time; 100% of delays communicated with clear updates within 48 hours.
- Compliance Readiness: 100% adherence to legal, regulatory, and reporting requirements (incl. Cayman Foundation obligations); zero compliance breaches at HoS Ops team.
- Security Robustness: 0 security breaches impacting treasury funds or governance/data infrastructure.
- Co-funded Projects Transparency: ≥90% of co-funded projects report against their stated milestones and meet them where House of Stake operations is responsible.
Note: House of Stake cannot guarantee outcomes beyond its scope of responsibility. Responsibilities are defined in each proposal’s RACI chart, and tokenholders approve proposals based on their trust in the capabilities of the stakeholders involved.

Reporting Cadence:

Quarterly: Comprehensive report covering KPIs, budget usage, buffer utilization, co-funding allocations, and functional independence.
Q3 2026: Mid-cycle review of budget allocation and outlook for Season #2 requirements.
Yearly: Full annual report, including audited financial report, on-chain records, evaluation of key mechanisms (buffer, co-funding pool), vendor selection report, and overall performance. Season #1 report due in February 2027.

Technical Specification, Budget & Ressources

Budget Breakdown

(all figures in USD $'000)

Category Description Budget
Team HoS Ops Manager $63.75
Security & Smart Contracts Smart Contract Audits $90.00
Legal & Compliance House of Stake director, accounting services and legal counsel $154.00
IT & Infrastructure User onboarding, identity & access management, administration of core tools, license management, vendor coordination, data backup and recovery, IT & AI security, emergency support, troubleshooting $58.50
Data & Insights Data analytics, monitoring tools, LLM licenses and agents $6.00
Treasury & Custody e.g. Fireblocks, Trezu multisig wallet mgmt. $19.00
Compliance Tools KYC/KYB onboarding, transaction monitoring for all financial transactions $65.00
Software e.g. Google Workspace, Slack, Notion, Github, Trello, Obsidian, Juro $4.50
Total Ops Budget $460.75

Applies to April–December 2026 (9 months). Core Ops Budget → ~$614.33k annualized.

Buffer & Risk Management

A $150k buffer is included to account for uncertainty and emerging risks.

Governance-Driven Execution Uncertainty

House of Stake executes tokenholder-approved proposals, making it impossible to fully predict:

  • Volume and complexity of proposals
  • Execution requirements
  • Legal and technical overhead

The buffer ensures execution is never blocked by lack of resources.

Evolving Security Landscape (AI-Driven Threats)

AI-driven threats are rapidly increasing in sophistication. As House of Stake manages treasury flows, it becomes a high-value target.
The buffer enables:

  • Additional audits
  • Security upgrades
  • Rapid response to threats

Any unused funds at the end of Season #1 will remain in House of Stake’s treasury.

Allocation Rules

Single allocation cap: $20k per use
The Head of Governance may approve allocations up to $20k at their discretion. All such uses must be disclosed in quarterly reporting.

Above $20k:
requires

  • Screening Committee approval (Governance-driven execution uncertainty), or
  • Security Council approval (Evolving Security Landscape)
  • Disclosure required in quarterly reporting

Usage Scope
Use of these funds is strictly limited to the scope outlined above.

Prohibited uses:
• Recurring salaries
• Discretionary grants

HoS Skin-in-the-Game (Co-Funding Pool)

As NEAR’s Treasury Governance Engine, House of Stake is preparing to make decisions on allocating protocol revenues, generated by teams across the ecosystem (e.g., NEAR Intents and many others).

This is not “our” money. It represents ecosystem value created over months and years.

This responsibility requires more than coordination, it requires aligned incentives and accountability.

Mechanism

To ensure rigorous evaluation and meaningful “skin in the game,” House of Stake will introduce a Proposal Co-Funding Mechanism:

For any upcoming Season #1 funding proposal approved through House of Stake governance,

  • House of Stake will co-fund 15% of the approved funding amount from its own treasury
  • This contribution is capped at $500k for Season #1 (April–December 2026)

Rationale

This mechanism ensures that:

  • House of Stake has direct economic exposure to the outcomes of its decisions
  • Proposals are evaluated with increased discipline and long-term thinking
  • Capital allocation remains aligned with the best interests of the NEAR ecosystem

By committing its own treasury alongside protocol-level funding, House of Stake strengthens accountability and signals confidence in the proposals it approves.

Example Scenarios

Scenario 1 — Cap not reached
Proposal asks for $800k total funding
→ $120k from HoS treasury (15%)
→ $680k from protocol revenues

Scenario 2 — Cap reached, prior co-funding: $400k
New proposal asks for $1.3M (15% = $195k)
Remaining HoS co-funding budget: $100k (cap constraint)
→ $100k from HoS treasury
→ $1.2M from protocol revenues

Scope & Review

  • Applies to funding proposals approved during Season #1
  • Requires a successful tokenholder vote on the respective proposal
  • All upcoming proposals must specify the Skin-in-the-Game allocation in their details
  • Total allocation in Season #1 is capped at $500k
  • Quarterly allocation reports
  • The mechanism will be reviewed and potentially updated after Season #1 through a new governance proposal

This is a first step toward building a governance system where decision-making and capital allocation are tightly aligned.

Backwards Compatibility

No protocol changes.

Security Considerations

Mitigations include:

  • Audits
  • Secure custody
  • Legal oversight
  • Transparent reporting

Stakeholders

  • NEAR tokenholders
  • House of Stake Head of Governance, team and Foundation directors
    proposal authors and stakeholders
  • NEAR Foundation
  • NEAR Ecosystem

Milestones & Implementation Plan

  • April: Forum discussion
  • April: Fully operational payment rails (crypto and fiat)
  • May: Voting opens
  • May: Budget approval and treasury activation
  • May: Handover of contracts and licenses from NEAR Foundation to House of Stake
  • Q2: Execution phase and quarterly reporting
  • Q3: Continued execution and quarterly reporting
  • Q4: Reporting, evaluation, and follow-up proposal. Any unused funds at the end of Season #1 will remain in House of Stake’s treasury.

Team & Accountability

RACI – Budget Responsibility & Decision Framework.

To ensure clarity, accountability, and efficiency in spending decisions, the following RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) framework applies:

Category Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed
Core Infrastructure HoS IT Head of Governance Ops Manager, BuilderOps, NEAR Dev Tokenholders
Security & Smart Contracts HoS IT Security Council NF dev, auditors, relevant domain experts (case-by-case) Tokenholders
Legal & Compliance Ops Manager HoS Foundation Directors External legal counsel Tokenholders
IT & Infrastructure HoS IT Head of Governance NF IT, auditors Tokenholders
Compliance Tools Ops Manager HoS Foundation Directors Legal, compliance providers Tokenholders
Treasury & Custody HoS IT, Ops Manager HoS Foundation Directors Security Council, legal advisors Tokenholders
Software & Subscriptions HoS IT Head of Governance n/a Tokenholders
Buffer Allocation Ops Manager Screening Committee / Security Council + Head of Governance + Directors Relevant domain experts (case-by-case) Tokenholders
HoS Skin in the Game Head of Governance Tokenholders NEAR Foundation Tokenholders

Implementation Notes

  • Tokenholders remain the ultimate authority through governance
  • Directors ensure legal and fiduciary accountability
  • Head of Governance ensures alignment with mandate and priorities
  • HoS IT and Ops Manager ensures execution and coordination
  • HoS IT: Service providers with dedicated NEAR and security expertise, hiring in progress
  • HoS Ops Manager: Hiring completed
  • Additional Oversight Layers: Sensitive categories (treasury, legal, compliance) include additional oversight layers (Security Council, auditors, domain experts)
  • Functional Independence:
    a) Backoffice: Where software and service agreements are already in place and have proven valuable, House of Stake will continue using existing licenses and contracts (e.g., Slack, Google Workspace, Notion).
    b) Execution Infrastructure: Core execution infrastructure (e.g., GitHub, Vercel, security and custody tools) must remain independent and under House of Stake control.
    c) Targeted Data Capability & Fiduciary Neutrality: House of Stake has a fiduciary duty to maintain independent visibility over all relevant data. This includes the capability to verify fund flows, revenues, and costs, and to conduct specialized economic analyses (e.g., unit economics, settlement trends), without relying on external parties or priorities.

For this proposal, the Head of Governance is authorized to select vendors based on best fit (quality, security, cost-efficiency). Vendor selections and key details will be disclosed in quarterly reports.

Governance of Continuation

Applies to Season #1 only, April 01 – December 31, 2026.

Conflicts of Interest

The author of this proposal serves as Head of Governance at House of Stake and is contracted by the NEAR Foundation, including for activities related to the implementation of this proposal.
The proposal is aligned with House of Stake’s mandate. To mitigate any potential conflict of interest, the Head of Governance will abstain from voting on this proposal. All relevant disclosures and potential benefits associated with this proposal are subject to House of Stake’s Conflict of Interest Policy and Code of Conduct.

Changelog

This proposal is an update to the budget proposal first published on April 16, 2026.
This revision includes

Frontmatter: Updated date

Abstract: Clarified separation of Ops Budget, Buffer, and Co-Funding Pool, added explicit authorization scope

Budget Structure: Clarified three components (Ops, Buffer, Co-Funding), adjusted category allocations toward leaner setup

Approach: Emphasized cost-efficiency and reuse of NF infrastructure, introduced concept of functional independence

Value Hypothesis: Expanded objectives and outcomes, added dependency on future co-funding votes

KPIs & Reporting: Structured KPI framework
added co-funding KPI, antroduced quarterly, mid-cycle, and annual reporting cadence

Technical Specification / Budget: Clarified scope as minimum viable operations, improved category descriptions and consistency, reduced funding ask for Operational Budget from $533.20k → $460.75 by leveraging efficiency gains (full independence → functional independence).

Buffer & Risk Management: Expanded with allocation rules and approval thresholds,
added governance structure and prohibited uses.

Co-Funding Pool (Skin-in-the-Game): Fully specified mechanism (15% rule, $500k cap),added scenarios and proposal-level requirements, clarified governance dependency on tokenholder votes

Milestones & Implementation: Refined timeline and sequencing

Team & Accountability: Expanded RACI (incl. buffer governance roles), added implementation notes (independence model, data responsibility), updated hiring status

Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via CC0 1.0.

3 Likes
2

This proposal raises serious concerns.

House of Stake is requesting $1.1832M for April through December 2026, yet the justification provided still feels too broad and too weak for a budget of this size. The language focuses heavily on “independence,” “execution capability,” “infrastructure,” and “compliance,” but the proposal does not clearly show why this spending level is necessary or how tokenholders will measure whether it delivered real value.

One of the first questions is structural. Why does House of Stake need a separate HoS Ops Manager if there is already a House of Stake manager, Angela (AK_HoG)? The proposal does not clearly explain what responsibilities this new role would own that are not already covered. Without that clarity, this looks less like operational efficiency and more like another layer of administration.

The second issue is the lack of concrete outcomes. Terms such as “execution reliability,” “transparent reporting,” and “security robustness” sound good, but they are still too generic on their own. These are management concepts, not measurable results. Tokenholders should be shown specific deliverables, timelines, accountability mechanisms, and success metrics. Otherwise, it is difficult to judge whether this budget creates meaningful value for the NEAR ecosystem.

The budget structure itself also deserves closer scrutiny:

• $533.2k for operations
• $150k buffer
• $500k described as “skin in the game”

The “skin in the game” component is particularly difficult to evaluate. If House of Stake is meant to oversee treasury governance, reserving up to $500k of its own treasury to co-fund proposals does not automatically create accountability. It may instead create a new discretionary capital pool with unclear standards, unclear oversight, and significant room for inconsistent decision-making.

The $150k buffer raises similar concerns. A reserve for uncertainty, AI-related threats, and legal contingencies may sound prudent in principle, but in practice it is still a large sum without sufficiently hard guardrails. Tokenholders are effectively being asked to approve a substantial flexible reserve before there is a clear framework for how, when, and under what limits it would be used.

The conflict of interest section does not fully resolve these concerns either. The author is Head of Governance, contracted by NEAR Foundation, and directly involved in implementation. Saying that he will abstain from voting addresses only a narrow part of the issue. It does not remove the broader concern that the same governance structure remains closely tied to the people designing and benefiting from it - Near Foundation (Illia is a security council at HoS and NF employees are part of Screening Comission).

At this stage, this does not read like lean governance. It reads like institutional expansion without enough precision, constraints, or proof of necessity.

If House of Stake wants broader trust, it should answer a few straightforward questions before asking tokenholders to approve this budget:

  1. Why is a new Ops Manager needed if Angela already serves as HoS manager?
  2. What concrete, measurable outcomes justify more than $1.1M in less than nine months?
  3. Why should tokenholders approve such a large buffer without strict spending conditions?
  4. What safeguards will prevent this from becoming another internal structure with weak accountability and high ongoing costs?
5 Likes
3

:white_check_mark: I’m fine with saving $1.5776M in funds here. If governance wasn’t competent (reliable execution) without these funds, it is undeserving of them. Nor should we expect that more money for bureaucrats will meaningfully benefit the community in anyway.

While contractors and other eaters may disagree, the community has yet to see any tangible benefits.

Thanks for bringing this proposed waste of funds to my attention!

2 Likes
4

The line items in this proposal is surprisingly high and unclear w.r.t scope and purpose

1. Legal and Compliance $134k

The proposal allocates $134k to legal and compliance without specifying:

  1. What regulatory obligations apply
  2. What specific legal risks require ongoing counsel

If House of Stake is simply (i) coordinating governance decisions, (ii) operating a multisig treasury, and (iii) executing tokenholder-approved proposals…then the compliance surface is limited.

Without clarity on legal exposures, and frequency and scope of legal work this line item is overstated.

2. Data and Insights (LLMs) $54k

The proposal includes $54k for “data analytics, monitoring tools, LLM licenses and agents” without defining:

  • What is being measured: governance participation? voting participation?
  • What scale of usage justifies this spend
  • What measurable outcomes are expected

3. Compliance Tools $76.3k

I’d think for a small team <5? you do not need to pay for KYC tools just to onboard team members. It’s unclear why such tooling is necessary when many small teams handle compliance workflows manually or with minimal tooling

4. Software Subscriptions $27.9k

This is probably the one that first caught my eye.
SaaS tools: Google Workspace, Slack, Notion, GitHub… etc; are typically: ~$10–$30 per seat/month

How on earth are we spending $28,000 over 9 months?

5. Security Smart Contract Audits $90k

This one is probably the most concerning…not so much the cost, but the fact that the team is deploying smart contracts.
The proposal does not define:

  • What custom smart contracts being developed and why

Allocating $90k implies undisclosed custom contract development which is worrying.

Conclusion

In its current form, this proposal has unclear uses of proceeds, has overbudgetd line items, and is therefore difficult to support.

Several major line items: legal/compliance, LLMs, compliance tools, software, and smart contract audits…are either not justified or don’t match the actual needs of a lean governance team.

Until the proposal clearly explains specific uses of funds, specific outcomes, why these costs are necessary, and aligns the budget with a realistic operating model, this proposal should not be approved.

5 Likes
5

Nice to see you take an interest in NEAR governance after a long hiatus.

I will not speak on behalf of the proposal author but a lot of the concerns you raise were candidly discussed in last week’s HoS GM (Governance Meeeting) call.

The HoS team is very different now to what it was a few weeks ago. From what I can observe; it’s a very lean team and the HoS Ops Manager will be the first hire under the HoSF. The roles and responsibilities of this person were covered in the job posting on the NEAR Careers page (can’t find it rn) as well as on a previous community call.

On point #2; you need to see HoS as a governance vehicle / infrastructure that enables NEAR tokenholders to take good and informed decisions for the ecosystem. Deliverables will mostly apply to proposals which involve tangible actions and changes. Curious how would you define success for HoS?

Agree, the $500K “skin in the game” might seem a bit vague, but isn’t the purpose of HoS to essentially use its treasury to fund proposals?

I don’t have an opinion on the buffer amount. Whilst there might be disagreements on its size; a buffer is necessary.

The HoG is a female :slight_smile:

2 Likes
6

One of the lessons from Polkadot governance that pretty much everyone agreed on was to use of stables for these costs so to avoid any buffer altogether. Hopefully the House of Stake starts considering the inclusion of stablecoins into their operations and budgets that don’t require the use of the native token.

Hopefully a multi-asset treasury is considered in the future for HoA.

2 Likes
7

I need some more time to think and make a decision on that, but I already want to share my 2cents to set some baselines and common ground while I evaluate the proposal.

First,

I agree with setting up an operational budget for HoS and I believe going independent of the Foundation is a big win both for HoS and for the community/ecosystem. I also have no reason to doubt the team’s integrity and I believe these amounts have gone through careful diligence and have plausible justifications.

(Second,)

These justifications, however, are lacking in this proposal.

Other comments already did a good job pointing out specific points and concerns around each (or in general) and I believe all of them have some merit.

>$1.18M budget for 9 months ($131K/month) is a lot of money for a project in this stage that, afaik, won’t generate significant direct revenue back to the ecosystem. Putting it in contrast with the NEAR Intents MPC Network proposal by the SVRN team, which already raised some doubts and fair questions/concerns even while establishing solid basis for NEAR’s largest protocol revenue-wise so far.

If the expenses are justifiable (and I believe they might be), it’s simply not clear in this proposal’s current form. I agree we need much more details and clear justifications for a clean approval, which brings me to my third and last point.

Third,

I’ve noticed that recent high-budget approvals have been made in what looks like a rush.

This applies to the SVRN proposal and also to this one.

In what some discussions end up getting to: “But we need to approve this now, or…”

Putting community, delegates, and stakeholders against the wall for an “approve or die” situation.

For example:

  • this proposal already addresses April expenses, while being proposed on April 16
  • this proposal very likely is already being considered approved by the team and the new hirings (as @fiatisabubble mentioned in a comment here)
  • together with infra, etc.

I don’t believe this is a governance good practice.

We shouldn’t be rushing to approve $1M budgets that have already being considered approved even before public deliberations.

What it does it creating incentives for YES votes even if the proposal is not in its ideal form yet (we saw that happening in the MPC Network program), with unclear promises of improving it on flight.

No. The proposals should be in their final form when approved.

What this suggests to me, and sorry for my honesty, is one of two things:

  1. it was deliberate – the less likely scenario from what I can tell, as I truly believe in the team’s honesty and integrity

A sort of (dirty, imo) political strategy to have a better chance of having the proposal approved; which is manipulative and reduces the legitimacy of the approvals, imho.

  1. It was unintentional

Which may suggest low efficiency in planning and execution.
Not a deal breaker, but not great either.

Even worse for such large amounts.

I understand the project is still maturing and many things need to get approved for HoS to finally take off, but there are better ways of doing it and it’s ok to aim for slow, organic, and gradual maturity and growth (which would probably mean a lower budget, overall).

All that said, I still not sure how I would vote on this one.

I’ll be following further comments here and I’ll try to join the calls (have not being able due to a change in my working schedule, with some meetings being placed right at the same time of the governance calls).

2 Likes
8

:prohibited: Flagging this comment as not appropriate

@Mayor_of_Pumpopolis please keep contributions constructive: “2.1.1 Treat others with professionalism, dignity, and respect, including during disagreement or dispute.” see Code of Conduct.

This comment will remain.

Follow-up comments disputing this moderation note will be removed.

3 Likes
9

I believe the buffer is for unforeseen circumstances and not specifically for token price volatility but I think it’s a valid point to have a portion of the HoS treasury in stables.

The treasury which HoS inherits is almost entirely in NEAR so I wonder how they’ll go about it.

2 Likes
10

Thank you @Lacy @peitalin @fiatisabubble @Saxemberg @vinibarbosa for feedback and your questions, happy to provide answers!

I’ll first provide more context on where we are and how this proposal emerged, and then follow up separately with detailed responses on individual budget items.

Part 1: Context on the Proposal, Process, and Pace

1. Transition from NEAR Foundation Funding to Independence

Up until now, House of Stake has been fully funded by NEAR Foundation (NF).

  • All 2025 costs, infrastructure, team, and service providers, etc. were covered by NF
  • In January, following Lane’s departure, costs were reviewed and significantly reduced
  • The team was restructured and relaunched (see March 19 blog post):
    https://houseofstake.org/blog/House-of-Stake-2.0

Today, House of Stake is operating on a bare-minimum setup required to function.

With the Citizens House vote passed in March, House of Stake has now its own treasury, and with that comes responsibility.

This proposal is not asking for “new” or “extra” funding.
It is transitioning existing, ongoing operational costs from NF to House of Stake, starting April 2026.

2. A Controlled and Gradual Transition

To avoid disruption, we aligned with NEAR Foundation on a phased approach:

  • NF continues to cover personnel costs (e.g. Agora, core development work) during Season #1
  • House of Stake takes over operational costs (infrastructure, legal, compliance, execution), as outlined in this proposal
  • A co-funding (“skin in the game”) mechanism is introduced to align incentives
  • A buffer is included to handle uncertainty during this transition

This is intentionally a measured and conservative step toward independence, not an expansion.

3. On “Gradual Growth” vs. Budget Size

It’s ok to aim for slow, organic, gradual growth (which would probably mean a lower budget)

This proposal is exactly that.

  • We are not scaling headcount
  • We are not expanding scope aggressively
  • We are not introducing large new programs

We are simply:

Taking over the cost of running what already exists.
From NF’s perspective, they have already been patiently continuing to fund HoS month after month since early 2025.
This proposal ensures House of Stake can stand on its own feet.

4. On Timing and Perceived “Rush”

Recent high-budget approvals seem rushed

This proposal is not a sudden move, it’s the result of a multi-month transition.

Here is the timeline for context:

This has been a progressive, public process, and we will take the necessary time to address open questions and incorporate any needed updates.

5. On Operational Urgency

One important clarification:

House of Stake is already expected to execute proposals that have passed.

To make this possible:

  • We have hired an Ops Manager last week
  • NEAR Foundation agreed to temporarily bridging these costs until a budget has been voted on to ensure continued operations

With its own active treasury as of March 2026, this bridging arrangement was agreed with the expectation that House of Stake transitions to funding its own operations starting in April 2026.

6. Summary

  • This is not a growth budget, it is a transition to independence
  • Costs already exist, we are simply taking ownership of them
  • The process has been gradual and publicly communicated
  • We need to respond to operational realities, without rushing decision-making

I’ll follow up with a second post addressing the detailed budget items and numbers.

3 Likes
11

Part 2: Clarification of Budget Structure

Let’s be precise:

  • ~$533k → actual operational budget
    plus
  • $150k → buffer (not pre-allocated spend)
  • $500k → co-funding for future proposals (“Skin in the Game”)

So the majority of the $1.1M is not operational spend.

To reflect this more clearly, I’ll update the proposal title to:
“Establish House of Stake Operational & Proposal Co-Funding Budget for 2026.”

2. Legal & Compliance — “Pure bureaucracy?”

This proposal is not introducing new bureaucracy, it is implementing what has already been ratified in the Constitutional Docs:

  • House of Stake Foundation
  • Proposal & Voting procedures
  • Governance structure

Why legal compliance is necessary

The House of Stake Foundation exists to:

  • Provide a compliant interface to the real world
  • Protect tokenholders from liability

Without it, liability would be unclear (potentially falling on tokenholders).

However, this comes with real-world obligations:

  • Cayman Islands regulatory compliance
  • Directors, legal counsel, accounting
  • KYC/KYB requirements

This is not optional, it’s the cost of operating a legitimate, accountable governance institution.

4. KPIs & Measurable Outcomes

Operations are successful when they are invisible and reliable, but we still define clear, measurable KPIs:

  • Execution Reliability: ≥95% of voting processes completed end-to-end on schedule
  • Transparency: 100% of required reports published on time; any delays communicated within 48 hours
  • Compliance Readiness: 100% adherence to legal and reporting requirements; zero compliance breaches
  • Security Robustness: 0 security incidents affecting treasury or governance/data systems

Happy to refine these KPIs further, but they should remain meaningful indicators of performance, not vanity metrics.
Suggestions welcome.

5. Proposal Co-Funding ($500k), “Skin in the Game”

Context

As NEAR’s Treasury Governance Engine, House of Stake will allocate protocol revenues, generated by teams across the ecosystem (e.g., NEAR Intents and many others).

This is not “our” money. It represents ecosystem value created over time.

Mechanism

To ensure accountability:

  • House of Stake will co-fund 15% of every approved funding proposal from its own treasury, complementing funding from protocol revenues
  • Each proposal must explicitly state the HoS contribution amount
  • Total co-funding is capped at $500k for Season #1

Example Scenarios

Scenario 1 — Cap not reached

  • Proposal asks for $800k total funding
  • → $120k from HoS treasury (15%)
  • → $680k from protocol revenues

Scenario 2 — Cap reached

  • Prior co-funding: $400k
  • New proposal asks for $1.3M (15% = $195k)
  • Remaining HoS co-funding budget: $100k (cap constraint)
  • → $100k from HoS treasury
  • → $1.2M from protocol revenues

Why this matters

This mechanism ensures:

  • Stronger evaluation discipline
  • Direct economic exposure for House of Stake
  • Full transparency for tokenholders

It is a key step toward building trust:

House of Stake is willing to commit its own capital alongside its decisions.

Scope & Next Steps

  • Applies to Season #1 only
  • House of Stake will report to evaluate:
    • Whether to continue or adjust the mechanism in Season #2
    • How House of Stake’s treasury should be funded long-term (e.g., sustainable revenue mechanisms, protocol revenue allocation, treasury mgmt.)

6. Data & Insights ($54k)

What this covers

  • Governance analytics (voting behavior, participation, power distribution)
  • Program evaluation
  • Dashboards and reporting

Why it matters

Tokenholders have the right to evaluate the outcomes of programs and the use of funds.

All proposals so far have included reporting and analytics. This budget ensures we can continue and improve this practice, generating insights on governance dynamics and optimizing proposal execution.

Examples of past work

Tokenholders expect data-driven decision-making and accountability.

Delivering this requires budget, for individual contributors, LLM tools, analytics software, APIs, and related infrastructure.

7. Compliance Tools ($76k)

Why this cost exists

House of Stake is becoming the financial interface of the NEAR ecosystem. This is not about KYCing a team of five.

  • 112 entities rewarded in Jan 2025–April 2026 (4 months, HSP-002/-003/-007)
  • Expected transactions in 2026: ~1000
  • Both crypto and fiat flows

Each requires:

  • KYC/KYB onboarding
  • Ongoing monitoring

Costs:

  • Simple KYC → cents
  • Full KYB (business) → ~$50 per entity

We need tools + manual processes to handle this at scale and correctly.

8. Ops Manager Role ($63.5k)

Why this role exists

Operations are already scaling:

  • 100+ recipients → growing fast
  • Contracts, negotiations, onboarding
  • Secure transaction execution (multi-sig)
  • Address updates, verification processes
  • Up to ~1000 transactions/year

Role split

  • Head of Governance: strategy, system design, governance evolution
  • Ops Manager: execution, coordination, day-to-day operations

In a nutshell:

  • If HoS evolves → Head of Governance
  • If HoS runs smoothly → Ops Manager

9. Buffer ($150k)

Why a buffer is necessary

Two realities:

a) Governance-driven uncertainty

HoS must execute unknown future proposals:

  • Unknown complexity
  • Unknown legal/technical requirements
  • Potential urgent needs

b) Security risks (increasing rapidly, esp. with AI)

Treasury + payment flows = high-value target

Recent exploits show (over a dozen DeFi hacks in the past two weeks!)

Delayed response → lost funds

How buffer is controlled

Let’s add the following checkpoints:

  • Screening Committee → approves proposal-related extra spend
  • Security Council → approves emergency spend
  • Full reporting applies, as outlined

Note that this buffer is not intended to offset NEAR price fluctuations. While handling price volatility is important, it should be addressed through a separate proposal.
As with all budget items, any unused buffer funds will remain in the House of Stake treasury.

10. Software Subscriptions ($27.9k)

Assumptions:

  • ~$10–30 per user/month
  • Multiple users per proposal (stakeholders involved in execution)
  • Multiple tools required (PM, infra, LLMs, legal)
  • Multiple proposals passed in Season #1

Example:

$20 per seat × 10 users × 3 tools × 9 months × 5 proposals ≈ $27.9k

This is a conservative estimate, not aggressive.

11. Smart Contract Audits ($90k)

The House of Stake smart contracts are available here:
https://github.com/houseofstake/house-of-stake-contracts

They include the veNEAR token mechanics, voting contracts, and non-upgradable lockup contracts, forming the initial foundation for governance incentives and voting.

This is a strong starting point, but it is not the end state.

Current contracts are limited:

  • Basic voting (yes/no)
  • Single voting power model

With HoS moving into economic governance, we’ll need:

  • More advanced incentive design
  • More advanced voting mechanisms beyond simple yes/no
  • New governance patterns driven by 2026 proposals and ecosystem needs
  • Stronger security guarantees

All of this demands careful implementation, robust security measures, and professional audits. At this stage, $90k is a reasonable and prudent allocation, not an excessive one.

12. What happens to unspent funds?

All unspent funds per budget item remain in the House of Stake treasury

Full transparency is ensured through:

  • Quarterly reporting
  • On-chain tracking of fund flows
  • Oversight by the House of Stake Foundation

At House of Stake, no funds can be spent without:

  • Director oversight
  • Clear reporting obligations

13. Conflict of Interest

Please refer to the Conflict of Interest Policy.

Having an interest ≠ conflict.

This framework has been:

  • Extensively discussed
  • Ratified with 100% support

Closing

This budget proposal is about one thing:

Making House of Stake operationally independent, accountable, and capable of executing governance decisions at scale.

Happy to clarify further and iterate on the proposal.

2 Likes
12

Thank you so much, @AK_HoG, for this more comprehensive breakdown and the clarification of the budget structure. I personally view this transition to operational independence as a critical step in maturing the HoS, and I also believe that this budget is fairly conservative in terms of spend and reasoning.

I’d like to highlight a few points that I believe require further refinement to ensure this proposal meets the high standards that the HoS continues to build:

1. Treasury De-risking & Unit Economics: Following up on @fiatisabubble’s point; since our expenses (Legal, IT, Compliance) are USD-denominated but our treasury is NEAR heavy, we face significant currency mismatch risk - if the price of NEAR drops, it could have a negative effect on upcoming but allocated expenses. I would like to suggest a commitment to diversifying a specific percentage of this budget into stables upon approval to lock in the 9 month runway. This protects the HoS from being forced to sell NEAR during high volatility to cover fixed costs.

2. Enhancing KPIs for Utility over Hype: The current KPIs focus on execution reliability (i.e. the plumbing). I suggest adding a Value-Add KPI. For example: "Reduction in average proposal-to-execution lead time’" or "Percentage of co-funded projects meeting their own stated milestones.'" If HoS is putting 15% skin in the game, we should be tracking the ROI of that 15% specifically.

3. Addressing the Bureaucracy Concern: I’d like to see a commitment that by the end of Season #1, we evaluate service provider competition for the IT & Infrastructure and Data & Insights categories to ensure the HoS is getting the best market rates. It’s common in budget reviews to determine if the former budget spend is still required, and with changing markets, SP’s offerings could look very different, or our needs may change.

Overall, the ‘Skin in the Game’ mechanism is a really good addition to the budget, and a pioneering move for HoS accountability; I am also very supportive of this direction provided these volatility and oversight concerns that I mentioned are addressed. Having the ‘Skin in the Game’ mechnanism also allows for the HoS to demostrate that we are taking accountability and responsibility for the treasury, which is necessary for our long-term growth.

1 Like
13

After 1.5 years and nearly a million dollars spent on creating the HoS, we are now told:

To resolve this, the HoS suggests that an additional $1.5M should be spent.

When asked directly what the tangible purpose of this exercise is, fiatisabubble flips the question back on the asker:

When someone asks for 1.5 million dollars, it should be incumbent upon them to outline the tangible benefits.

For me, this reads like circular reasoning. We are told that the results of the process will be further process. We are told the results of bureaucracy will be improved bureaucracy, with more seats. Credentials and hubris are waived around in lieu of any direct benefits for token holders or the larger ecosystem.

We need to be very clear on this point. Deliverables cannot be quantified as further process, for the process’s sake. There’s nothing personal in this. The individuals involved will respond to the incentives baked into the premises of HoS. Similar critiques were rightly leveled at the NDC and other structures. This is a consistent issue which has not been addressed.

This quote says it all. If you need to rationalize this spend on additional bureaucracy by claiming it isn’t new bureaucracy, you’re playing semantic games. Cite a document promulgated by your own bureaucratic process if you must. That’s fine. Reasonable people should be able to discern between that circular argument and the fact that HoS hasn’t delivered any tangible benefits.

Then there are basic mathematical inconsistencies. If we assume there is a monthly billing schedule, why has the price been multiplied by the number of proposals?

Which again, is just a side issue. However find it illustrative of the larger issue, which is that HoS has nothing to offer me as an ecosystem participant. Outside of the curated environment of forum discussions and whatever goes on in those “meetings”, the silent majority is highly skeptical of this process. When paid governance professionals conclude that they only need deliver “more process” rather than tangible results, they miss the point.

2 Likes
14

Hi all,

Looking forward to today’s GM HoS Community Call!
We’ll cover:

  • Budget Proposal Q&A
  • New Proposal Process Introduction

Come with your questions, let’s discuss.
:tear_off_calendar: Thursday, April 23 at 4 PM UTC!
:link: https://meet.google.com/ynf-tfur-crx

15

:prohibited: Flagging this comment as not appropriate

@Mayor_of_Pumpopolis, please read the proposal author clarification and don’t make false statements. "4.6 Spam, brigading, shilling, disinformation, or deliberate sabotage of governance processes. see Code of Conduct.

:prohibited: Flagging this comment as not appropriate

  1. Please speak for yourself and avoid implying you represent “the community.”“4.3 Impersonation or misrepresentation of identity, authority, or affiliation.” see Code of Conduct.

This comment will remain.

Follow-up comments disputing this moderation note will be removed.

Pumpopoly - One solo dev vs. millions of dollars of grants and insider promos
16

I appreciate the detailed breakdown by AK, but I have a hard time reconciling the scale of this budget with the actual community engagement we see today. We are looking at a $1.1M proposal for an entity whose main announcement channel has only 75 followers.

If House of Stake is meant to be the ‘Treasury Governance Engine’ of NEAR, we have a massive mismatch between the overhead and the user base. A few specific concerns:

The ‘Skin in the Game’ ($500k): This feels like an accounting shell game. Moving $500k from the protocol treasury to the HoS treasury just to ‘co-fund’ back into the protocol isn’t creating new value; it’s just adding a layer of middle-man administration.

Administrative Bloat: We are spending $533k on operations—including a dedicated Ops Manager and $54k for ‘Insights’—to manage a governance process that currently lacks broad participation.

The KPI Gap: The proposed KPIs (95% reliability, 100% reporting) are for internal maintenance, not external growth. Where are the KPIs for increasing the number of veNEAR lockers or protocol revenue?

Right now, it feels like we are building a $1M Ferrari to drive 10 feet down the road. Shouldn’t we focus on a lean, ‘Season 1’ budget that prioritizes community growth before committing to $150k buffers and Cayman legal fees?

4 Likes
17

We have already seen the same pattern with projects like NEAR DevHub and Aurora Labs: large budgets, long timelines, constant “ecosystem development,” but no publicly visible revenue impact for $NEAR holders.

From what is being discussed, NEAR Foundation has already allocated around $2M to build HoS. And now the plans to spend another $1.5M per yearwrapped in “decentralization”

What kind of decentralization Angela is talking about if Screening committee , Security Council and HoS foundation (Bowen) are controlled by the Foundation?

Additionally, why are new roles and assistants being added while governance itself remains stuck? Expanding bureaucracy can make sense when a business is profitable and scaling revenue. But when there is no visible revenue, every new role should come with clear KPIs, public accountability, and measurable outcomes.

Otherwise, the pattern is obvious:

More spending.

More token sell pressure.

More internal bureaucracy.

More “ecosystem development.”

Still no revenue.

1 Like
18

Which exceeds the number of dapp launches on NEAR. At this point we have more bureaucrats and aspiring bureaucrats than builders or active projects.

Still looking for clarification on that software subscription math. I think the community is entitled to that much.

2 Likes
19

:prohibited: Flagging this comment as not appropriate

@Rosalia, please read the proposal author clarification and don’t make false statements. "4.6 Spam, brigading, shilling, disinformation, or deliberate sabotage of governance processes. see Code of Conduct.

Repeating false statements don’t make the argument any better.
From here, posts building on false statements already flagged will be deleted, and accounts removed.

20

Thanks @DDeAlmeida for your comments:

Administrative Bloat: We are spending $533k on operations—including a dedicated Ops Manager and $54k for ‘Insights’—to manage a governance process that currently lacks broad participation.

We are looking at a $1.1M proposal for an entity whose main announcement channel has only 75 followers.

Right now, it feels like we are building a $1M Ferrari to drive 10 feet down the road. Shouldn’t we focus on a lean, ‘Season 1’ budget that prioritizes community growth before committing to $150k buffers and Cayman legal fees?

Let me clarify:
This budget proposal is not about growth or community participation.

It is about operations, to secure end-to-end proposal execution, in line with the House of Stake mandate. This mandate does not prioritize community growth.

Our mandate is to become NEAR’s Treasury Governance Engine. This requires capabilities across the full proposal lifecycle, from early ideas to final execution and delivery.
That’s why the budget includes items like IT & Infrastructure, Security & Smart Contracts, and Legal & Compliance.

Many DAOs prioritized community growth for the sake of numbers, lost control over execution, and wasted significant funds.

The KPI Gap: The proposed KPIs (95% reliability, 100% reporting) are for internal maintenance, not external growth. Where are the KPIs for increasing the number of veNEAR lockers or protocol revenue?

The KPIs in this proposal are designed to measure HoS operational outcomes. The activities and infrastructure funded here will have only a limited impact on veNEAR locked or protocol revenues.
I do agree on adding a KPI for the co-funding aspect @coffee-crusher suggested though. It’s on my list for a proposal update, alongside other inputs from this discussion.

NEAR locked and protocol revenues are critical metrics for NEAR, but they should be addressed through dedicated proposals from ecosystem stakeholders, not within this proposal or by the Head of Governance.

2 Likes