HSP-XXX: House of Stake - Conflicts of Interest Policy

House of Stake Proposals
1

This proposal is published for community feedback by @AK_HoG on behalf of the proposal author @UhthredB, as requested.

Frontmatter

hsp: TBD
title: House of Stake - Conflict of Interest Policy
description: Check readiness to ratify Conflict of Interest Policy
author: @UhthredB
discussions-to: this post
status: Draft
type: Decision
category: Legitimacy & Engagement
created: 2025-11-29
requires: HSP-001

Abstract

This proposal establishes a comprehensive Conflict of Interest (COI) policy for the House of Stake, ensuring transparent, impartial, and trustworthy governance. It defines conflict categories, outlines disclosure and recusal requirements, provides practical examples, and sets enforcement and review procedures to uphold integrity, and accountability across all governance activities.

Conflict of Interest Policy
Version: v1.0
Audience: all House of Stake Governance members, such as Delegates (both endorsed and otherwise), community members, and all individuals empowered to participate in or influence decisions arising from the House of Stake.
Archive: House Of Stake Foundation- Conflict of Interest Policy (v1.0 Draft), v0.3 (Public Feedback collected)

Conflict of Interest Policy

Conflict of Interest Policy

Conflict of Interest Policy

Article I: Purpose

This policy safeguards the integrity and legitimacy of the House of Stake and the NEAR Protocol by ensuring House of Stake Governance members’ personal, professional, or financial interests do not improperly influence, or appear to influence, their decisions and actions. The policy upholds transparency, accountability, and trust in all governance activities in alignment with the NEAR ecosystem’s values of openness, fairness, and protocol-first decision-making.

Article II: Scope

This policy applies to all Delegates (both endorsed and otherwise), community members, and all individuals empowered to participate in or influence decisions arising from the House of Stake.

Article III: Definition

House of Stake Governance members are expected to use the following 2x2 matrix to guide their conduct and participation:

No Perception of COI Perception of COI
No Actual Conflict Green Light: Participate freely Yellow Light: Disclose and consider recusal
Actual Conflict Red Light: Recuse and disclose Full Stop: Recuse, disclose, and abstain from all discussion & decision-making

Article IV: Examples

Below are practical examples to guide House of Stake Governance members in identifying and managing conflicts of interest according to the framework:

:white_check_mark: Green Light: No Actual Conflict + No Perception

You may participate without restrictions in the following scenarios.

Voting examples:

  1. Voting on NEAR protocol upgrades or technical proposals.
  2. Voting on HoS operational procedures.
  3. Voting on your working group’s budget and funding requests (please note delegates should recuse themselves on proposals that benefit their individual compensation)
  4. Voting on compensation structures for the upcoming term (as long as a continuation of the term is not guaranteed).
  5. Voting on other working groups’ activities.

Working Group examples:

  1. Reviewing grant applications from teams you have no relationships with.
  2. Participating in budget planning for your working group.
  3. Selecting service providers with whom you have no connections.
  4. Making operational decisions about working group processes.
  5. Evaluating proposals based purely on merit.
  6. Drafting proposals for upcoming term compensation (as long as a continuation of the term is not guaranteed).

:warning: Yellow Light: No Actual Conflict + Perception of COI

The guidance is ideally to recuse yourself (perception is as important as reality), but a certain degree of discretion is permissible.

Voting examples:

  1. You were an employee at a company seeking funding (but left years ago with no ongoing interest).
  2. You own NFTs from a project seeking NEAR integration support.
  3. You’ve publicly endorsed a project that’s now seeking grants.

Working Group examples:

  1. Your friend’s team applies for a grant (no financial connection, but a personal relationship).
  2. You’re active in a community that’s requesting funding.
  3. A former colleague is on a team seeking approval.
  4. You have received publicity or material goods from the subject of a decision.
  5. You’ve tweeted positively about a project now under review.

Guidance:

  1. First choice: Recuse yourself—this is the cleanest approach.
  2. If recusal would seriously harm the process (e.g., leaving too few Delegates to make decisions):
    • Publicly disclose the relationship in detail.
    • Let your fellow Delegates decide if you should participate.
    • Accept their judgment without argument.

:police_car_light: Red Light: Actual Conflict + No perception of COI

You must recuse yourself AND disclose:

Voting examples:

  1. You’re an unpaid advisor to a proposal (not publicly known).
  2. You own tokens/equity in a project that is the beneficiary of an HoS proposal.
  3. You’re silently invested in a competing project that would benefit from a “no” vote.
  4. A proposal would grant you personal tokens or delegations (apart from delegate incentives paid out by the protocol).

Working Group examples:

  1. Your spouse/partner works for a grantee.
  2. You have an informal agreement for future compensation with a proposal beneficiary.
  3. A grantee has promised to hire you after your Delegate term.
  4. You’re an informal consultant to a service provider candidate.
  5. You have undisclosed token allocations from a project seeking support.

Guidance:

Immediately disclose the conflict to your peers/ working group members and recuse yourself from all related discussions and decisions. Your fellow Delegates will handle the matter and may select a stand-in if and when required.

:stop_sign: Full Stop: Actual Conflict + Perception of COI

Recuse yourself completely

Voting examples:

  1. Voting on the current term compensation that affects you directly.
  2. Voting on a proposal that would grant you tokens or delegations outside normal compensation.
  3. Your company or project is seeking HoS funding.
  4. Voting to increase current term compensation retroactively.

Working Group examples:

  1. Your working group is reviewing your company’s grant application.
  2. You’re listed as an advisor or team member on an application.
  3. The applicant is your current employer or client.
  4. You’re evaluating a service provider you work for.
  5. Your working group is deciding on immediate bonuses or token distributions.

Guidance:

Recuse yourself from all discussions and decisions. Leave the room (physical or virtual) during deliberations. Your fellow Delegates will document your recusal and handle the decision.

Important Distinction: Proposals vs. Votes

Even if a proposal might benefit you (like token distributions to Delegates):

  • You CAN participate in drafting and discussions of the proposal.
  • You SHOULD abstain from the actual vote and let the broader delegate body decide without your influence on the outcome.

The Guiding Principle

If a reasonable argument could be made against your impartiality, you should recuse yourself. This isn’t a question of individual integrity, but rather one of legitimate community trust in HoS governance

When in Doubt:

If you’re not sure which quadrant you’re in:

  • Ask yourself: “Would I financially benefit, directly or indirectly?”
  • Ask yourself: “Would a reasonable person think I might benefit?”

If either answer might be yes, prefer recusal. When unsure, disclose to your working group Delegates and discuss. It’s better to recuse unnecessarily than to participate inappropriately.

The Recusal Process

If a recusal is warranted

  1. State it clearly to your peers/ WG members.
  2. Recuse completely, don’t try to influence the outcome.
  3. Let others handle it, trust your fellow Delegates.
  4. Document it publicly; transparency builds trust.
  5. Stay out until it’s resolved, don’t check in or ask for progress reports

Why this matters:

Every time you choose recusal over participation when there’s an appearance of conflict, you:

  • Strengthen the community’s trust in governance.
  • Set an example for future Delegates.
  • Protect the legitimacy of the decision.
  • Reinforce the highest ethical standards HoS governance operates at.

Article V: Procedures

1. Duty to Disclose

House of Stake Governance members must promptly and fully disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest to the House of Stake, either in writing or verbally at the earliest opportunity.

2. Recusal

House of Stake Governance members with a disclosed conflict must recuse themselves from all related deliberations, voting, and decision-making.

3. Documentation

All disclosures and recusals are to be recorded in the House of Stake’s official records and made available for review by stakeholders.

4. Review and Guidance

The Security Council / Screening Committee will review disclosed conflicts and advise on appropriate actions, including further recusal or mitigation steps.

5. Ongoing Disclosure

House of Stake Governance members are required to update their disclosures as new conflicts arise or existing circumstances change.

6. Investigation and Addressing Conflicts

When a conflict is disclosed, the Security Council/ Screening Committee will gather all relevant information and, if necessary, question the involved parties. If a conflict exists, the Committee may prohibit the Delegate from voting or participating in related matters, and if necessary, recommend further disciplinary action, including removal from the Delegate position

Article VI: Enforcement

Violations of this policy may result in disciplinary action, including removal from Delegate status, as determined by the House of Stake’s governance procedures.

Article VII: Transparency and Accountability

All conflict of interest disclosures and management actions shall be handled with transparency to maintain trust in the House of Stake and the broader NEAR ecosystem.

Article VIII: Policy Review

This policy will be reviewed annually or as needed to ensure continued alignment with best practices and the evolving needs of the NEAR Protocol governance framework.

END OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY V0.3

Context & Alignment

  • [HSP‑001] defines that “The author(s) must state that they’ve read and agree with the House of Stake Conflict of Interest policy, and must state any conflicts of interest, if relevant.”
  • This proposal codifies a clear, practical Conflict of Interest (COI) policy. It does not modify existing budgets or operational structures but strengthens governance norms by introducing consistent disclosure, recusal, and documentation practices. By situating this policy within existing governance structures, the proposal ensures that all Delegates, contributors, and participants in HoS decision-making operate under shared expectations that reinforce the integrity of the entire ecosystem.

Situation

- What problem are we solving?

As the House of Stake (HoS) assumes broader governance responsibilities, Delegates or other governance members increasingly face decisions that may intersect with personal or professional interests. Without a standardized Conflict of Interest (COI) framework, disclosures and recusals are inconsistent, creating uncertainty and exposing HoS to risks of perceived or actual bias.

- What happens if we don’t address it?

Failure to act could undermine decision legitimacy, weaken community trust, and increase the likelihood of disputes or accusations of favoritism. Establishing a clear COI policy now ensures consistent expectations, protects governance integrity, and maintains confidence in HoS decision-making as its scope expands.

Mission

The mission of this proposal is to establish a clear, consistent Conflict of Interest framework that protects the integrity of House of Stake (HoS) governance. It aims to ensure governance members can identify, disclose, and manage conflicts effectively; safeguard decision-making from undue influence; and maintain community trust through transparent and impartial processes.

Approach

This proposal introduces a standardized Conflict of Interest framework using a clear 2×2 matrix to classify actual and perceived conflicts. It establishes consistent requirements for disclosure, recusal, and documentation across all HoS governance activities. The Security Council/Screening Committee will review cases, provide guidance, and enforce compliance. The policy prioritizes transparency, minimal disruption to decision-making, and alignment with established NEAR governance values while acknowledging limitations such as reliance on self-reporting and the need for ongoing updates as governance evolves.

Technical Specification

This proposal formally adopts the House of Stake Conflict of Interest Policy and makes it binding for all HoS governance members.

Core Requirements

Disclosure: Members must promptly disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.

Recusal: Members with a conflict must recuse from related discussions, deliberations, and voting.

Documentation: All disclosures and recusals must be recorded in official HoS records and made publicly accessible.

Review: The Security Council / Screening Committee evaluates disclosures and may require recusal, mitigation, or further action.

Ongoing Updates: Members must update disclosures as circumstances change.

Implementation

The 2×2 COI matrix becomes the standard decision-making guide.

The recusal process outlined in the policy becomes mandatory.

Violations are subject to disciplinary measures, including removal.

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.

Milestones

Milestone Target Date Deliverable
Successful Decision Proposal Q4 2025 COI part of the official HoS governance repository
Operationalization Q1 2026 Establish disclosure and recusal reporting procedures, prepare standard disclosure forms/channels/templates.
Monitoring & Adjustment Q4 2026 or earlier Reviewing of disclosures, recusal actions for transparency records tracked, feedback collected for future policy refinement, policy review conducted, finalised, and documented.

KPIs

KPI Source of Truth Target
COI Disclosure Rate Delegate profiles at NEAR Voters | Delegate Your Voting Power 100% of Delegates declare COI
COI Review Annual survey of HoS governance members ≄ 50 respondents

Budget & Resources

Item Amount Notes
Total 0 Ⓝ This proposal does not request budget or resources for its implementation.

Reporting: A review report will be published before 1 December 2026, including any recommended amendments or updates based on newly ratified governance policies.

No funding is requested under this proposal. Should ratification occur, any future operational needs will be addressed through separate follow-up proposals aligned with the Milestones.

Implementation

  • The Conflict of Interest (COI) policy will automatically enter into force 7 days after ratification and Security Council approval.
  • Publish the Conflict of Interest Policy in the official House of Stake governance repository.
  • Notify all Delegates and governance members of the policy’s activation date.
  • Require all Delegates to publish an initial COI disclosure within a defined timeframe.
  • Integrate COI disclosure and recusal procedures into existing voting and proposal workflows.
  • Update meeting templates to include a standing COI disclosure item.
  • Enable documentation of disclosures and recusals in public governance records.
  • Assign the Security Council / Screening Committee responsibility for reviewing disclosures and advising on recusal cases.
  • Incorporate the COI framework into onboarding materials for new Delegates, governance members and community members.
  • Begin continuous monitoring and update the policy based on governance feedback and yearly review.

Team & Accountability

  • Accountable: House of Stake, Screening Committee, Head of Governance.

Security Considerations

Establishing a clear Conflict of Interest policy strengthens governance security by reducing risks of undue influence, insider advantage, or compromised decision-making. Transparent disclosure and recusal requirements limit opportunities for bad actors to manipulate outcomes or obscure personal benefit. The mandatory documentation and Security Council oversight further ensure issues are detected early, investigated consistently, and resolved before they impact protocol integrity.

Conflict of Interest

The proposal author is @UhthredB and declares no conflicts of interest related to this proposal.

This proposal is published for community feedback by @AK_HoG on behalf of the proposal author @UhthredB, as requested.

Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via CC0 1.0.

Authorship & Acknowledgements

Authored by: @UhthredB
Review and feedback from: House of Stake community and delegates, @AK_HoG

2 Likes
2

A standardized, canonical disclosure location or form would prevent fragmentation across verbal comments, proposal threads, Delegate profiles, and meeting notes. This would strengthen consistency, auditability, and long-term governance memory.

Additionally, if a conflict emerges after initial discussion but before the final vote, is the update posted on the proposal thread, the central registry, or both?

1 Like
3

This is a very well-thought-out and well-executed piece of work , I really like the proposal! And it comes across as strong and solid. That said, there is one point that may be worth clarifying or refining , not necessarily now, but perhaps in the future.

The instruction: “Document this publicly.”

It’s not entirely clear how exactly this public documentation should take place, where it should be posted, or in what format.

A similar ambiguity appears in the following section:

It would be helpful to clarify in which specific records or repositories this information should be located, and what the process should look like in practice.

2 Likes
4

Thanks @Othman and @haenko, for flagging open points.
I suggest we update the proposal and process instructions with more specific information, I opened a ticket on Github.

4 Likes
5

I support the ethos of this proposal and particularly the addition of the 2x2 COI matrix, milestones and the KPI’s. However, I do some see some additions that should be considered to make it more specific and strengthen it’s useage:

  • The intent is for each participant in the community to disclose, communicate and even if necessary, recuse themselves from the conflict, however, there is no language to address what if a community member (knowingly or not) violates the COI. The proposal states that the Security Council/Screening Committee may require further action, but it’s not specific on the process other than it may include removal, but removal from what, if it’s a delegate, there is no auto-undelegator governance contract that I’m aware of, and only a ban from the forum and TG group could be enforced. And if the offender is removed, is it final (and for what length of time) or does the offender have any recourse (i.e. an Ombudsman)? Unfortunately I’ve seen this attempted without success in another DAO community, and the removed offender just changed wallet addresses and forum profiles.

  • I have concerns that this proposal lists both the Security Council/Screening Committee with the responsibility to review COI violation cases, etc. This feels outside of the scope of the Security Council, and should be the sole responsibility of the Screening Committee.

  • This proposal should include in the list of examples for Article IV: Examples - that for any member of the Screening Committee who oversees or participates in a COI review or decision of an offending community member, that the SC member must disclose and recuse themselves, if they have a COI Yellow Light or Red Light level relationship with that individual.

1 Like
6

Thanks for sharing your comments @coffee-crusher.

I have concerns that this proposal lists both the Security Council/Screening Committee with the responsibility review COI violation cases, etc.

This proposal should include in list of examples for Article IV: Examples

Valid points! Before I comment further, I’ll let Uthread respond, as he has been drafting this COI policy based on extensive community feedback and may have good reasons for structuring it this way.

@UhthredB , please take it from here.

1 Like
7

Thanks so much for the response, and I appreciate @UhthredB viewpoint on these points. Tks!

1 Like
8

This is solid work, clear structure and practical guidance for participants.

But I want to flag a tension most DAOs face: the people who create the most value often have the deepest ties to the ecosystem. They advise teams, build products, drive partnerships. Under strict COI rules, these ties become conflicts. But these are often the exact people the community wants involved because of their experience and alignment.

Example: Should a large NEAR holder be forced to abstain from Council decisions just because of their stake? Doesn’t that remove influence from those with the most conviction and skin in the game?

The tradeoff:

  • Too loose → unchecked conflicts to game for cash grab on expense of the project

  • Too strict → you push out your most capable, aligned contributors

The policy is strong. But consider adding:

  • Ways to participate at reduced levels instead of full abstention

  • Clarity on when “skin in the game” is alignment, not conflict

  • Guidance for contributors who wear multiple hats in good faith

We don’t want to accidentally discourage the high-context people who make governance work.

4 Likes
9

Well said @Zeptimus , this gets to a core DAO tension.

Strong contributors often have deep ecosystem ties, and at a certain level that’s unavoidable. In fact, general incentive alignment is a strength: people with skin in the game, context, and conviction are best positioned to shape our strategy to make NEAR successful.

At the same time, not all decisions are equal. That’s where case-by-case COI handling matters.

  • For high-level decisions (strategy, roadmap, budget frameworks), participation from aligned stakeholders is key. Alignment here is not a conflict, it’s a superpower: It protects HoS from capture by short-term or ill-motivated actors.
  • For specific decisions (like funding proposals, direct benefits), conflicts need closer scrutiny.

The key to addressing COI in DAOs is distinguishing healthy alignment from situations that require careful handling, rather than treating all interests as conflicts.

4 Likes