NEAR House of Stake — Code of Conduct (CoC) draft for community review

House of Stake Hack Humanity
3

Continued…

References for Best Practices and Risks

References

Centre for International Governance Innovation. (2021). Algorithms and the control of speech: How platform governance is failing under the weight of AI. https://www.cigionline.org/articles/algorithmic-content-moderation-brings-new-opportunities-and-risks/

DAO Research Collective. (2023). Constitutions of Web3: A comparative study of DAO governance documents. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.00081

Gabriel, I. (2020). Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment. Minds and Machines, 30(3), 411–437. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11023-020-09539-2

Gómez, V., Blumenschein, K., & Giampietro, A. (2024). Predictive multiplicity and arbitrariness in content moderation. Journal of Online Trust and Safety. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.16979

Ranking Digital Rights. (2022). RDR Corporate Accountability Index. https://rankingdigitalrights.org/its-the-business-model/

Santa Clara Principles. (2018). Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation. https://santaclaraprinciples.org/

Schneider, N. (2023). Governable spaces: Democratic design for online communities. University of California Press. https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520393950/governable-spaces

Transcend. (2024). Key principles for ethical AI development. https://transcend.io/blog/ai-ethics

UNESCO. (2023). Guidelines for the governance of digital platforms. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387339

3. Comparative Matrix: Existing CoCs Evaluated Against the Governable Spaces Framework

Click to Expand: Comparative Matrix

This matrix evaluates DAO, open-source, hackathon, and institutional Codes of Conduct (CoCs) against core governance dimensions drawn from Governable Spaces (Schneider, 2023), Constitutions of Web3 (Tan et al., 2024), and UNESCO (2023). It integrates institutional anchors such as Brookings (2022), Transparency International (2021), and Global Fund (2021).

Code of Conduct Legitimacy & Consent Representation & Inclusivity Accountability & Feedback Transparency & Disclosure Enforcement & Due Process Restorative & Appeals Education & Accessibility Strengths Weaknesses
Uniswap DAO (2023) Medium — RFC posted for feedback High — clear anti-harassment norms Medium — COI disclosure encouraged Medium — rationale visibility Low — no enforcement ladder Low — no appeals process Low — minimal onboarding Professionalism, COI disclosure Weak enforcement, no appeals
Arbitrum DAO (2023) Medium — Foundation-led structure High — inclusive language and tone Medium — professionalism standards Medium — transparency on roles Medium — sanctions defined Low — no restorative justice Medium — some cultural awareness Clear sanctions, tone of inclusion Appeals system unclear
Optimism (2023) Medium — Council-based experiment Medium — scoped by grant oversight Medium — COI handling in grant issues Medium — Rules of Engagement Medium — some enforceability via platform Low — no public appeals system Low — limited documentation access Governance minimization, grant focus Weak procedural transparency
Scroll Foundation (2023) Medium — delegated representation Medium — standard participation norms Medium — COI transparency rules Medium — public responsibilities posted Low — lacks public enforcement steps Low — no formal appeals Low — accessibility not addressed Delegate professionalism No enforcement or appeal detail
ZK Nation (2023) Medium — issued by foundation High — strong anti-discrimination policy Medium — public values alignment Medium — publication of CoC Low — unclear enforcement Low — no mention of appeals Low — accessibility not specified Clear values language No enforcement roadmap
NDC Transparency Commission (2023) Medium — unclear drafting process High — multilingual & diverse access Medium — conflict disclosure encouraged Medium — partial transparency Medium — informal sanctions listed Low — appeals process absent Medium — some accessibility emphasis Cultural awareness, diversity Weak procedural structure
Contributor Covenant v3.0 (2023) Medium — widely used template High — clear anti-discrimination High — supports feedback reporting Medium — commits to openness High — detailed enforcement ladder Medium — remediation referenced Medium — translated versions offered Excellent behavioral clarity No attention to power dynamics
Django CoC (2023) Medium — issued by foundation High — inclusivity & respect focused Medium — accountability encouraged Medium — partial transparency High — structured enforcement ladder Medium — allows for apologies Low — limited accessibility tools Transparent enforcement steps Weak on multilingual support
Creative Commons (2020) Medium — mission-aligned code High — inclusion explicitly stated Medium — professional behavior encouraged Medium — clarity in guidelines Medium — enforcement stated but light Low — no appeals mechanism Medium — basic accessibility included Simple and accessible Lack of enforcement tiers
Hack Humanity Hackathon (2025a)** Low — internal and informal Medium — clear safety language Low — discretionary enforcement Low — rules not fully documented Medium — enforced by organizers Low — appeal not guaranteed Low — depends on on-site staff Safety, no-tolerance policy No participatory legitimacy
ArbGovHack T&C (2025b)** Low — private agreement-based Medium — respect and fairness stated Low — no disclosure paths Low — enforcement is discretionary Low — rules briefly mentioned Low — appeal or mediation absent Low — no multilingual options Basic integrity language Weak transparency

Methodology

The matrix uses the analytical lens from:

And compares CoCs using governance principles from:

Observations

  1. DAO CoCs show progress in inclusivity and delegate professionalism (e.g., Scroll, ZK Nation), but lag on enforcement, appeals, and procedural transparency—elements central to democratic legitimacy.

  2. Open-source models (e.g., Contributor Covenant, Django) offer strong behavioral clarity and detailed sanction ladders, yet often neglect participatory ratification and power imbalance concerns.

  3. Hackathon codes prioritize physical safety and organizer discretion, but lack due process, appeals, and long-term governance principles. They serve as risk management tools more than community governance frameworks.

  4. Institutional anchoring remains rare in DAO-native codes. Most documents do not cite external governance or rights-based standards, weakening legitimacy in multisectoral contexts.

  5. Transparency and accountability mechanisms—like public statistics, audit trails, and AI explainability—are missing in nearly all CoCs reviewed, despite increased reliance on automation.

  6. Appeals and restorative pathways remain a major gap across all formats. Only open-source communities occasionally mention apology or remediation.

  7. The House of Stake CoC combines the procedural rigor of open-source with participatory intent of DAOs, and institutional safeguards, positioning it as a next-generation model.

References for Comparative Matrix

References

4. Synthesis Memo – Insights from Comparative Analysis of CoCs

Click to Expand: Synthesis Memo

Executive Summary

Across DAO, open‑source, hackathon, and institutional CoCs, we observe strong cultural norms (respect, inclusion) but weak procedural justice (e.g., vague enforcement, lack of appeals). Delegate‑oriented DAO codes (e.g., Uniswap DAO, 2023; Scroll Foundation, 2023) emphasize disclosure and professionalism, while open-source models (Contributor Covenant, 2023; Django Software Foundation, 2023) offer more precise enforcement frameworks. Hackathon codes center on safety and organizer control, but lack legitimacy mechanisms ([Hack Humanity, 2025a]; [Hack Humanity, 2025b]). Institutional anchors—such as UNESCO (2023), Brookings (2022), Transparency International (2021), and Santa Clara Principles (2018)—provide actionable standards for due process, transparency, redress, and accountability.

For HoS: an effective CoC must combine DAO-native legitimacy, open-source enforcement clarity, and institutional due-process frameworks—with a roadmap for automation ethics.

Methodology (Dual‑Anchor)

Institutional Anchors

Literature Anchors

Comparative Base

Core Patterns Across Existing Codes

1. Universal Emphasis on Respect & Inclusion

Open-source and DAO CoCs promote harassment-free, inclusive environments (Contributor Covenant, 2023; Schneider, 2023).

2. Weak Enforcement & Procedural Justice

DAO CoCs lack enforcement ladders or appeals mechanisms. Open-source codes provide better tools, but lack legitimacy frameworks (UNESCO, 2023).

3. Transparency & Conflicts of Interest (COI)

Some DAOs lead on COI disclosures (e.g., Uniswap; Scroll), but few include reporting requirements or public statistics (Brookings, 2022).

4. Limited Participatory Legitimacy

Most codes are foundation-issued; few show public input or ratification (Tan et al., 2024).

5. Neglect of AI Governance

Automation is mentioned rarely. Where used, there’s little attention to explainability, auditability, or human oversight (Gabriel, 2020).

Implications for HoS (Design Choices)

Legitimacy & Consent

  • Include a ratification plan, change logs, and public comment cycles.

Enforcement & Due Process

  • Define a graduated enforcement ladder, with evidence thresholds and timeline targets.

  • Embed appeals and cultural competence mechanisms (Django, 2023; UNESCO, 2023).

COI & Transparency

Accessibility & Representation

AI Governance

  • If AI tools are used (e.g., for triage), enforce human-in-the-loop, auditability, and override protocols (Transcend, 2023; CIGI, 2021).

Recommendations

  • Add “Appeals & Remediation” section with clear standing and review steps

  • Publish “Sanctions Ladder” aligned with severity tiers

  • Require COI disclosures and publish aggregated vote rationales

  • Add Transparency Report clause (quarterly or annual anonymized cases)

  • Embed AI Policy appendix (oversight, contestability, audit trails)

  • Translate key sections into 5–10 major NEAR languages

  • Document amendment and ratification cycle

Risk Description Mitigation
Elite Capture Stake-weighted votes may entrench incumbents Rotating roles, term limits, minority appeals Schneider, 2023
Opacity Lack of clarity on enforcement undermines legitimacy Publish processes, issue transparency reports Santa Clara Principles, 2018
Automation Bias AI tools lack oversight or transparency Require human oversight, audits, appeals Gabriel, 2020
Cultural Blind Spots Rules may misalign with diverse NEAR communities Require linguistic/cultural representation UNESCO, 2023
Overregulation Complex rules deter engagement Provide plain-language summaries and visuals Contributor Covenant, 2023
References for Synthesis Memo

References

Arbitrum DAO. (2023). Arbitrum DAO code of conduct. Arbitrum Foundation Forum. https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/the-arbitrum-dao-code-of-conduct/29713

Brookings. (2022). Transparency as the first step to better digital governance. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/transparency-is-the-best-first-step-towards-better-digital-governance/

Centre for International Governance Innovation. (2021). Algorithms and the control of speech: How platform governance is failing under the weight of AI. https://www.cigionline.org/articles/algorithmic-content-moderation-brings-new-opportunities-and-risks/

Contributor Covenant. (2023). Contributor Covenant: A code of conduct for open source projects (Version 3.0). https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/3/0/code_of_conduct/

Creative Commons. (2020). Creative Commons code of conduct. https://creativecommons.org/code-of-conduct/

Django Software Foundation. (2023). Django community code of conduct: Enforcement manual. https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/

Gabriel, I. (2020). Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment. Minds and Machines, 30(3), 411–437. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11023-020-09539-2

Global Fund. (2021). Code of conduct for governance officials. https://www.theglobalfund.org/media/4293/core_codeofethicalconductforgovernanceofficials_policy_en.pdf

Hack Humanity. (2025a). Hack Humanity governance hackathon code of conduct. Personal communication, August 18, 2025.

Hack Humanity. (2025b). ArbGovHack terms & conditions. Personal communication, August 18, 2025.

Optimism Collective. (2023). Code of conduct. Optimism Governance Forum. https://gov.optimism.io/t/code-of-conduct/5751

Ranking Digital Rights. (2022). RDR Corporate Accountability Index. https://rankingdigitalrights.org/its-the-business-model/

Santa Clara Principles. (2018). Santa Clara principles on transparency and accountability in content moderation. https://santaclaraprinciples.org/

Schneider, N. (2023). Governable spaces: Democratic design for online communities. University of California Press. https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520393950/governable-spaces

Scroll Foundation. (2023). Delegate & voter code of conduct. https://scroll.io/gov-docs/content/delegate-voter-code-of-conduct

Tan, J., Angeris, G., Chitra, T., & Karger, D. (2024). Constitutions of Web3: A comparative study of DAO governance documents. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.00081

Transcend. (2023). Key principles for ethical AI development. Key principles for ethical AI development | Transcend | Data Privacy Infrastructure

Transparency International. (2021). Our principles. https://www.transparency.org/en/the-organisation/mission-vision-values

UNESCO. (2023). Guidelines for the governance of digital platforms. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387339

Uniswap DAO. (2023). RFC: Delegate code of conduct. Uniswap Governance Forum. https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-delegate-code-of-conduct/20913

ZKsync Association. (2023). ZK Nation code of conduct. https://docs.zknation.io/zk-nation-community/zk-nation-code-of-conduct