HSP-008: Improving Transparency and Accountability in Endorsed Delegate Selection
1. Summary
This proposal addresses serious transparency and conflict-of-interest issues in the initial selection of Endorsed Delegates for House of Stake (HoS).
The current endorsed list includes individuals and entities with direct financial or contractual ties to the NEAR Foundation (NF), yet the Screening Committee did not disclose criteria, scoring methods, or voting behavior.
This proposal requires the publication of all selection criteria, votes, comments, conflicts of interest, and financial expenditures connected to the delegate selection process — including off-chain events such as the Cannes offsite.
Furthermore, it calls for the removal of any endorsed delegate who was selected despite a clear conflict of interest.
2. Background
Endorsed Delegates are expected to represent the community and participate in HoS governance on behalf of token holders.
However, the current selection process was conducted entirely off-chain and without transparency. Several red flags have been identified:
-
No published evaluation criteria or scoring rubric
-
No disclosure of voting records or abstentions
-
NF contractors (e.g. Nearweek, Yuen) were endorsed despite conflicts of interest
-
Committee members with NF connections did not recuse themselves
-
Public explanations do not match the actual process
-
Community concerns were left unaddressed
This creates the perception — and potential reality — of favoritism, centralized influence, and manipulation.
3. Issues Identified
Lack of Transparency
-
No criteria published
-
No scoring or weighting method shown
-
No individual comments or justification provided
Conflicts of Interest
-
Endorsed Delegates include NF-funded contractors
-
Screening Committee members with NF ties voted on NF-related candidates
-
No self-recusal despite obvious conflict
Off-Chain, Opaque Process
-
No on-chain record
-
No community oversight
-
No accountability mechanism
Misleading Communication
-
Public statements about the process do not align with internal actions
-
Concerns raised by community members were not acknowledged or addressed
4. Proposal: Required Transparency and Corrective Actions
To restore community trust and ensure legitimacy, the following actions are proposed:
A. Publish Full Selection Criteria and Evaluation Details
-
All criteria and weighting used
-
Scoring or evaluation breakdown per candidate
-
Written comments or feedback from the Screening Committee
B. Publish Voting Records and Conflicts
-
Who voted for each candidate
-
Who abstained (or failed to abstain)
-
Explanation of why NF-affiliated candidates were approved
-
Justification for allowing committee members with NF ties to vote
C. Remove Endorsed Delegates with Conflict of Interest
Any endorsed delegate who:
-
Is a contractor, employee, or funded entity of NEAR Foundation
-
Works for or receives payment from NF or its subsidiaries
… must be disqualified and removed from the endorsed list.
(Examples include but are not limited to Nearweek, Yuen, and similar NF-affiliated entities.)
If they wish to serve as delegates, they must reapply under a conflict-free, transparent process in the future.
D. Financial Transparency: Publish All HoS-Related Budgets Since 2025 (This is option if there is not trade secret)
Including:
-
All service providers working on HoS (e.g. Gauntlet, Agoga, Hack Humanity, etc.)
-
Total amounts paid
-
Purpose and scope of work
-
Deliverables and outcomes produced
E. Full Transparency on the Cannes Offsite
The following must be disclosed:
-
Total budget spent on the event
-
Source of funds (NF, HoS, other)
-
List of all participants
-
Who received travel or lodging payments
-
Mandatory individual report from each participant:
-
Why they attended
-
What they contributed to HoS
-
What results were produced as a direct outcome
-
F. Correction of Public Narrative
The Screening Committee must publicly correct any statements that:
-
Misrepresent the selection process
-
Omit material facts
-
Ignore conflict-of-interest concerns
-
Claim transparency where there was none
5. Expected Outcomes
By implementing this proposal, HoS will:
Restore legitimacy to the delegate system
Expose and correct conflicts of interest
Rebuild trust between delegates and the community
Prevent centralization of influence by NF
Establish transparency as a non-negotiable governance standard
Set a precedent: No representation without accountability