NEAR House of Stake - Co-creation Cycle: A Process to Build Legitimacy
THIS POST IS DEPRECATED AND HAS BEEN REPLACED AS OF NOV 5TH, 2025 BY Cocreation Cycle Living Document
This post is meant to be the must-read introduction to the Co-creation cycle process.
Why Participatory Design Matters
In decentralized ecosystems, legitimacy is earned through openness, inclusivity, and shared ownership. Even the results of a vote might be legitimate according to the letter of the law and what is enforceable onchain, but at the same time hurt legitimacy in practice.
Legitimacy is the glue that unites our actions in this shared purpose. Every decision made will have some members that agree and some that do not. Legitimacy holds us together through disagreements.
Currently, the authority to make decisions is held by the NEAR Foundation as well as control of funds. When House of Stake launches, there will be a legitimate mechanism to make decisions - some of which will allocate funding and/or authority.
This creates two existential questions:
- How do we build legitimacy prior to the House of Stake onchain mechanism being decided? (This affects the decisions that must be made before launching.)
- Once the House of Stake is capable of making decisions and allocating funding/authority, how do we minimize members exiting the system due to disagreement with the outcomes of collective decisions?
Legitimacy Prior to HoS Launch
The reality is that NEAR Foundation holds this power today, however, House of Stake Foundation is actively including the community in many of these decisions. Not by a vote, but through the cocreation cycle process.
Our most important community decisions can’t be handed down from a small group—they need to be co-created. Participatory design ensures that decisions are not only well-informed but also widely supported, building legitimacy and resilience for our ecosystem.
However, we need to balance this with limited attention from key stakeholders.
This is why we are utilizing a method to draft with a small number of participants, actively pursue representative feedback, and check if there is agreement. Each “cocreation cycle” refers to this process which then expands to larger and more thoroughly representative groups and/or using defensible statistically valid methodology only if there isn’t broad agreement on the initial proposal.
Broad agreement can be vague, due to not having the accuracy of the House of Stake contracts available to cast a vote. This means we may move forward without official ratification if we sense broad agreement AND believe that the work done in parallel to ratification will ultimately be useful even if there is more work to be done to ratify a policy or agreement.
Legitimacy After House of Stake Launch
After launch, the House of Stake may directly vote an any decisions that need to be made. The constitution and code of conduct describe the current ruleset, which may be changed by a successful proposal.
Everyone knows that there are a number of stakeholders who have the most influence or voting power in every system. For them to drive the vision to fruition, they must maintain legitimacy to harness the power of the community to maintain political decentralization, otherwise referred to as capture-resistance.
Legitimacy must be forefront in all decisions as this process begins including hiring, policy, funding, adjudicating, and more. The initial conditions set up by the team prior to House of Stake launch will be the guiding force to compound legitimacy after launch.
The Co-Creation Cycle
Step 1. Discovery
We begin by gathering all available information, context, and relevant examples to inform the work.
Step 2. Small-Group Drafting
A smallest viable group of contributors drafts an initial proposal. This ensures we start lean, without spending unnecessary time or resources.
Step 3. Full Community Feedback
The draft is shared openly with the entire ecosystem, with adequate time for review. During this stage, we explicitly ask: “Who else needs to be consulted?” and directly reach out to those stakeholders to invite their input.
Step 4. Threshold Check
If feedback indicates broad agreement, the proposal can move directly toward ratification or usage.
If feedback shows gaps, concerns, or weak agreement, the cycle repeats — but with an expanded circle of participants in the drafting group.
Expanding Circles of Participation
The cycle can repeat up to three stages (or more if needed), each time widening participation to strengthen legitimacy:
Smallest Group → Broad Feedback
Draft with a minimal design group. Share ecosystem-wide for feedback. If strong support → ratify. If weak support → expand.Broader Representation → Broad Feedback
Draft with a larger group that includes representatives from all key stakeholder groups. Share ecosystem-wide again. If strong support → ratify. If weak support → expand.Defensible Representation → Broad Feedback
Draft with a group structured to be legitimately representative of all stakeholder groups. Share ecosystem-wide again. If strong support → ratify.
If still contentious → repeat or apply a representative model for decision-making.
If a proposal or policy does not ratify after three cycles, the endeavor may be futile and time better spent on other activations. Highly polarizing and/or emotionally strong arguments can create tension, but legitimacy allows us to walk away from even the closest calls blaming the system if we are unhappy with the outcome - not our fellow NEAR voters.
Step 5. Ratification or Usage
If thresholds of support are met at any stage, the proposal can be ratified or put into practice.
Why This Matters
This approach balances efficiency (not over-investing time when consensus is already present) with legitimacy (expanding inclusivity whenever support is lacking). The result is a process where outcomes are not only actionable, but also widely trusted as authentic expressions of the community’s will.
Referencing the Cocreation Cycle
When discussing the status of a project or initiative, we may refer to its “cycle #”. This allows us to quickly and communicate the status. A standardized approach to building legitimacy allows the community to better understand how to participate and review.
| Cycle | Description |
|---|---|
| Cycle 0 | The smallest group possible. Maybe just one person making a quick first draft. This draft should show and share the initial concept. |
| Cycle 1 | The first draft is posted for feedback on the forum. The drafting team actively reaches out to stakeholders to assess reception. This feedback is incorporated and a first community draft is posted to the forum. This stage is minimum viable before attempting to ratify or use. |
| Cycle 2 | This stage is activated if the drafting team does not believe there is enough agreement to move forward to usage or ratification. Here, they will actively solicit feedback ensuring that they have consulted at least two stakeholders from each major stakeholder group. This stage is defensible by ensuring representation from all stakeholder groups. |
| Cycle 3 | This stage is activated if the drafting team still does not believe there is enough agreement to move forward to usage or ratification. Here they will devise a plan to incorporate even more feedback. This time they will document the methodology they use to ensure statistically representative feedback has been incorporated to the final draft. |
| Cycle n | Most proposals that get to this stage will simply not pass, however, there are some decisions that must be made. This stage leaves the process open ended to creatively design ways to ensure legitimacy is maintained through highly contentious decisions. |
Hack Humanity is facilitating the co-creation cycle and is the drafting team for many policy documents prior to the House of Stake launch. We look forward to unleashing the power of NEAR contributors in a politically decentralized and sustainable way as soon as it can be done with integrity.
What’s Next
This co-creation process will be applied immediately to foundational items such as:
Mission, Vision, Values (MVV) Post
Our MVV is more than a statement—it’s a living document that guides every decision we make. It provides the North Star at the top of our hierarchy: defining what’s in-bounds for autonomous community action and where boundaries lie. By revisiting and refining it over time, we ensure it reflects our true shared purpose. This framework not only shapes future decisions but also empowers contributors to work independently and with confidence, knowing their efforts align with our collective direction.
Code of Conduct (CoC) Post
Legitimacy requires not just shared goals, but also shared norms of respect, accountability, and trust. Our CoC will define how we engage with one another, creating the conditions for a safe, constructive, and inclusive community. This process is about co-creating standards that we all believe in, and that support both individual autonomy and collective well-being.
