HSP-XXX: NEAR House of Stake Mission Vision Values

House of Stake Proposals
1 

hsp: <tbd>
title: <NEAR House of Stake Mission Vision Values>
description: <Agree on the Mission, Vision & Values (MVV) to guide all of NEAR House of Stake’s activities>
author: <Hack Humanity>
discussions-to: <forum URL>
status: <Draft>
track: <Decision> 
type: <Supermajority>
category: <Legitimacy & Engagement>
stakeholders: <see section “Stakeholders”>
created: <2026-02-16>
requires: <No dependencies>

Abstract

Version: v1.0
Audience: NEAR Community
Archive: Version.0.1.1

This proposal adopts the Mission, Vision & Values (MVV) for NEAR House of Stake.
It covers:

  • A Vision that articulates the shared direction for NEAR House of Stake.
  • A Mission that guides concrete and directed activity towards that vision.
  • And a set of Values that give us detailed guiding principles to stay on course as we all continue to build and learn.

Payload

NEAR House of Stake Mission Vision Values Policy

NEAR House of Stake Mission Vision Values Policy v1

Vision

Enable decentralized Tokenholder participation and facilitate decision-making in the best interest of the NEAR Ecosystem.

Mission

To establish an evolving governance system,
that is incorruptible, uncapturable and sovereign by default,
co-created, co-governed and co-operated
by an AI-augmented NEAR Stakeholder community.

Values

  1. Credible Neutrality
  2. Experimentation with Safety
  3. Builder and Business Centric
  4. Autonomy with Accountability
  5. Adaptive Governance
  6. Meaningful Participation
  7. Transparency with Dignity
  8. AI-Augmented, Human-Governed
  9. Public Goods as Growth Engines
  10. Cultural Stickiness

Principles and behavioural tests behind the values

1. Credible Neutrality

Principle: Governance must be built by, with and for NEAR Stakeholders, augmented by Stakeholder-aligned AI that enhances transparency, intelligence and fairness, ensuring freedom from control and capture by individuals, institutions, or closed groups.

Behavioral Test: Does this action avoid risks of concentrating power e.g. protecting against a few top Stakeholders gaining overbearing control over the rest of the Stakeholders?

2. Experimentation with Safety

Principle: Governance models, funding mechanisms, and AI agents and tools are tested, via rapid prototyping and iteration, in lower-stakes environments before being merged into the main system.

Behavioral Test: What’s the worst that could happen if an experiment we are trying fails? Can it do so without risk of endangering the overall ecosystem’s health and integrity?

3. Builder and Business Centric

Principle: Governance must create the conditions for both individual developers and institutions to thrive – from the developer experience to enterprise-scale adoption. This includes funding the infrastructure, tools, and programs that make NEAR the most attractive platform for adoption that scales.

Behavioral Test: Does this decision improve NEAR as a place where developers, entrepreneurs, and enterprises can build great products and lasting businesses?

4. Autonomy with Accountability

Principle: Workstreams and contributors have freedom to innovate, balanced with clear success gates and measurable outcomes. Stakeholder-governed mechanisms should be in place for setting and regularly reviewing these objectives, in a fair and transparent way, keeping human and AI activity oriented towards our mission.

Behavioral Test: Does this program have both the freedom to act and clear metrics to evaluate success?

5. Adaptive Governance

Principle: Governance should evolve iteratively, guided by feedback loops and data-driven continuous learning systems that sense and respond to changing ecosystem needs and emerging opportunities.

Behavioral Test: Is there a mechanism to review and adapt this process if it no longer serves the ecosystem?

6. Inclusive & Meaningful Participation

Principle: All Stakeholders – large and small – must have meaningful ways to engage in governance. Decision-making influence may be proportional to stake, but our governance system must provide opportunities for knowledgeable NEAR Stakeholders to contribute, and add value, e.g. by authoring proposals, or serving as Screening Committee Members.

Behavioral Test: Are we creating opportunities for Stakeholders to contribute value, even if they don’t have significant stake-weighted voting power?

7. Transparency with Dignity

Principle: Decisions, funding, and performance are open and legible, while respecting privacy and personal boundaries.

Behavioral Test: Can this be shared with NEAR Stakeholders to enhance collective intelligence, without compromising anyone’s right to privacy?

8. AI-Augmented, Human-Governed

Principle: We embrace AI as a tool for fair, representative, efficient, and adaptive governance at scale. AI agents can be core participants in our governance processes. We build such agents in a decentralised, open-source and permissionless way, requiring that they operate transparently and in adherence with all of our values, so they can act as neutral, NEAR stakeholder-aligned governance participants.

Behavioral Test: Does this use of AI improve fairness, participation, efficiency or collective intelligence, while reinforcing our values and providing sufficient transparency and oversight for humans in the loop?

9. Public Goods as Growth Engines

Principle: We invest in shared infrastructure, tools, and governance systems, building out a data-driven governance layer for the use of humans and AI, as a powerful enabler of compounding network effects.

Behavioral Test: Will this investment increase the resilience, long-term potential and growth of the ecosystem beyond one project or cycle?

10. Cultural Stickiness

Principle: The DAO cultivates rituals, norms, and shared ownership that build loyalty across diverse participants.

Behavioral Test: Does this initiative make contributors more likely to identify with NEAR and remain engaged long-term?

END OF THE NEAR HOUSE OF STAKE MISSION, VISION, VALUES

Context

The version here provided includes a change in the Vision statement, incorporating the feedback received after the Sensing Proposal (7-Day Sensing Period) - HSP-006: House of Stake - Mission Vision Values.

This Constitutional Document is presented as a new HSP, that has been updated to comply with the updated HSP specifications in the Proposals and Voting Procedures.

Problem

We are currently in Phase One (Assembly) of the Governance Transition Program to progressively decentralize House of Stake.

A risk of decentralized governance is that contributors, coming from a broad diversity of backgrounds and perspectives, might have very different ideas of the direction we should be going in. This can lead to lack of clarity of how to contribute, disparate initiatives heading in opposing or contradictory directions and necessity for excessive levels of re-work.

Approach

To progress with legitimacy to Phase Two (Alignment), a ratified Mission, Vision & Values, co-created by and for the community, will align the activities of all House of Stake contributors, so that effort, attention and resources are focused on complementary and reinforcing initiatives that maximise our momentum and progress towards shared goals.

This should be flexible enough to create space for different ways of thinking to achieve those goals, and foster innovative approaches, realizing the full potential of the diverse set of Stakeholders in the House of Stake community.

End-to-end Value Hypothesis

On a standalone basis, this proposal establishes the Mission, Vision, and Values for shared sense-making and decision-making in NEAR House of Stake.

Objective

A broadly-supported Mission, Vision & Values, ratified on-chain, that motivates passionate, purposeful and aligned activity from all Stakeholders contributing to NEAR House of Stake.

Outcome

  1. MVV helps motivate and create clear opportunities for a growing number of existing and new contributors to meaningfully contribute to House of Stake.
  2. MVV alignment is used as one of a number of key criteria for assessing new proposals e.g. by the Screening Committee, by delegates.
  3. Clarity of direction aligns activity, resulting in a high proportion of proposals being successful and a high rate of those proposals achieving their objectives.

Dependencies

This proposal has no dependencies on external components, infrastructure, systems, or conditions.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

KPIs do not apply to this proposal.

Technical Specification

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

Backwards Compatibility

This proposal does not conflict with existing governance rules, technical systems, or processes, including the NEAR House of Stake Foundation Legal Documents.

Security Considerations

No security considerations associated with this proposal have been identified.

Stakeholders

Activity / Decision Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed
Alignment with the Policy NEAR House of Stake Governance Actors and Governance Body Members NEAR House of Stake Governance Actors and Governance Body Members - NEAR forum

Implementation Plan

The Definition of Done is achieved when the NEAR House of Stake Mission Vision Values Policy v1 is published in the House of Stake Documentation.

Milestones

There are no Milestones applicable to this proposal.

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: @dancunningham, @KlausBrave from @HackHumanity
Review and feedback from: @AK_HoG, Bianca Guimaraes (NF Legal), @danrandow, @HumbertoBesso, @haenko

4 Likes
Ratifying Our Constitutional Documents: Upcoming Proposals Dec 2025
2

MVV Change Report

Mission, Vision & Values (MVV) – Change Report

Thank you to all the community members who participated in workshops, Forum discussions, and the Sensing Vote. Special thanks to @AK_HoG, @lane, and Bianca Guimares-Chadwick (NF Legal) for their constant discussions and feedback.

Executive Summary

The Mission, Vision & Values (MVV) of NEAR House of Stake evolved from draft v0.1.1, shared for community review during Co-Creation Cycle 1, to an Open Community feedback synthesis that produced HSP-006, which was submitted to a Sensing Vote, and finally polished into the current MVV Policy v1, which, for the nature of changes made, is submitted as a new HSP.

⁠The feedback log records the history of changes; however, the only applicable change from the Sensing Vote version to the current v1 is the change in the Vision statement.

The Change: Anchoring the Vision to NEAR Governance Outcomes

  • Earlier AI- and internet-centric vision was replaced with a governance-focused statement.
  • The final Vision statement centers on decentralized Tokenholder participation and decision-making in the best interest of the NEAR Ecosystem.

Conclusion

The NEAR House of Stake Mission, Vision & Values consolidates community input, workshop synthesis, and sensing signals into a clear, stable set of guiding principles. By narrowing the scope, refining the language, and anchoring the Vision to concrete governance outcomes, the MVV provides a shared compass for decision-making in the best interests of the NEAR Ecosystem, while remaining open to future iterations.

3 Likes
3

Thank you so much, @HackHumanity for this work in moving the Mission, Vision, and Values (MVV) toward a Decision Vote. The transition from the Sensing phase has brought more technical focus to the document, but it has also introduced a significant shift in the Vision statement that I want to get some clarfication on these two sections:

  • The Sensing version of the Vision was a clear destination: “Decentralized governance for the user-owned Internet and humanity enhancing AI.” The current version (v1.0) has shifted to a description of a process: “Enable decentralized Tokenholder participation and facilitate decision-making…”. While the new version is functionally accurate for a DAO’s daily operations, a “MVV” traditionally describes the future state we are trying to build, rather than the mechanism of how we participate.

Ques: Why was the broader destination of a “user-owned Internet” removed in favor of a process-oriented statement? Does this change represent a narrowing of our long-term ambition for the HoS, or is the “user-owned Internet” goal now captured elsewhere in the framework?

  • Value #6 states that while influence is proportional to stake, the system must provide “meaningful ways” for all stakeholders to engage. It specifically mentions authoring proposals or serving on the Screening Committee.

Ques: Aside from these two high-barrier roles, what specific, non-weighted opportunities are being envisioned to ensure that the community remains inclusive? To ensure this doesn’t become a “whales-only” environment, we need clarity on what meaningful participation looks like for the broader stakeholder base who may contribute expertise rather than just capital.

Thks for continuing to move this forward.

4

Thanks @coffeecrusher for raising this. Good question!

Ques: Why was the broader destination of a “user-owned Internet” removed in favor of a process-oriented statement? Does this change represent a narrowing of our long-term ambition for the HoS, or is the “user-owned Internet” goal now captured elsewhere in the framework?

The original phrasing was:
“Decentralised governance for the user-owned Internet and humanity-enhancing AI.”

The updated wording is:
“Enable decentralized Tokenholder participation and facilitate decision-making in the best interest of the NEAR Ecosystem.”

This isn’t about narrowing ambition. It’s more about making sure House of Stake stays aligned with wherever NEAR’s North Star is at a given time.

Since the first MVV draft went live in November 2025, NEAR’s strategic focus has evolved toward building the Unified Commerce Layer. That’s a normal (and healthy) thing, successful protocols adapt to users, markets, and new opportunities.

Rather than locking HoS into one specific long-term narrative, the updated wording keeps governance flexible and aligned with what’s actually in the ecosystem’s best interest over time.

The broader vision of a user-owned Internet isn’t being dropped, it lives at the ecosystem vision level and is embedded in the mission and values. HoS’s role is to ensure decentralized participation and good decision-making, aligned with what’s best for the NEAR ecosystem.

2 Likes
5

Thanks also for your second question:

Ques: Aside from these two high-barrier roles, what specific, non-weighted opportunities are being envisioned to ensure that the community remains inclusive? To ensure this doesn’t become a “whales-only” environment, we need clarity on what meaningful participation looks like for the broader stakeholder base who may contribute expertise rather than just capital.

This is how we phrase it today:
*Principle: All Stakeholders – large and small – must have meaningful ways to engage in governance. Decision-making influence may be proportional to stake, but our governance system must provide opportunities for knowledgeable NEAR Stakeholders to contribute, and add value, e.g. by authoring proposals, or serving as Screening Committee Members. *
Behavioral Test: Are we creating opportunities for Stakeholders to contribute value, even if they don’t have significant stake-weighted voting power?

So it’s 100% in line with your concern.
We referenced those two roles because they already exist and are relatively well understood. But they’re not meant to be exhaustive. The framework shouldn’t freeze participation into just those formats.

It’s ultimately up to House of Stake to surface and create new meaningful ways to engage. For example, I’d personally love to see dedicated working groups around beta-testing NEAR products, potentially in collaboration with NEAR Legion. HoS members should know NEAR products inside out.

We’ll likely discover additional formats over time. The important part is that the structure intentionally leaves room for contribution beyond capital.

4 Likes
6

Thank you so much for this clarification based upon my questions. It’s totally understanderble that the mention of these two types of roles in the MVV are not meant to be exclusive - and I agree with that position. As their mention is not be exhaustive , could wording be clarified in this document that incorporated that?

Regarding your idea of “dedicated working groups around beta-testing”, I love this idea!

This is also something that Rika of @Axia has mentioned before, as a way for delegates to contribute. Personally, I would have loved to have been a part of the IronClaw beta-tester group! It aligns to the “Eating our own dog food” tactic that has been a successful practice by B2B’s over the past decade +, and it also strengthens HoS community members tighter to our products. Not only do we become testers, but we also become inherently Ambassadors.

2 Likes