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

House of Stake Hack Humanity
5

Continued…

6. Design Rationale for the House of Stake Code of Conduct

Click to Expand: Design Rationale

The HoS Code of Conduct (CoC) is designed as a dual-anchored governance instrument: it fuses institutional due-process standards and DAO/open-source practice to deliver enforceable, legitimate, and culturally competent rules for NEAR’s stake-weighted governance. We privilege clear procedures (intake → investigation → sanctions → appeal), transparency (COI, stats, changelog), and inclusion (language, accessibility, culture), with human-in-the-loop AI safeguards.
Sources: UNESCO, 2023 • Brookings, 2022 • Transparency International, 2021 • Global Fund, 2021 • Santa Clara Principles, 2018 • Schneider, 2023 • Tan et al., 2024 • Gabriel, 2020 • Transcend, 2023

Key design theses

  1. Legitimacy = procedure + participation: publish how rules are made, enforced, and revised; enable ratification.

  2. Clarity beats discretion: standardize definitions, intake, investigations, sanction ladder, and appeals.

  3. Transparency is default: COI registry, vote rationales, annual CoC statistics and changelog.

  4. Inclusion is operational: multilingual access, cultural/linguistic competence, accessibility accommodations.

  5. AI augments, not replaces: explainable, auditable, contestable, and always human-overseen.

1) Methodology & Evidence Base

Rationale. A dual-anchor approach—institutional norms + governance scholarship—avoids both technocratic overreach and community parochialism (UNESCO, 2023; Tan et al., 2024).
What HoS implements. Methods section in the draft details sources (UNESCO/Brookings/Global Fund; Schneider/Tan/Gabriel/Transcend/OECD/CIGI) and DAO codes (Uniswap/Arbitrum/Optimism/Scroll/ZKsync), plus NEAR precedents (NEAR Guidelines, NDC CoC, NEAR Community Etiquette).
Trade-offs & mitigation. Academic abstraction vs. operability → we provide concrete playbooks (intake/triage, severity matrix); community bias vs. rigor → institutional anchors and public RFC cycles.

2) Purpose & Values

Rationale. Values orient interpretation across ambiguous cases and unify sub-DAOs: transparency, integrity, inclusion, safety, professionalism, and responsible tech use (Global Fund, 2021; Transparency International, 2021; Schneider, 2023).
In the draft. We framed “Ecosystem-first, Openness, Accessibility, Growth, Professionalism, Safety, Ethical Tech” drawing on NEAR Foundation Guidelines, 2023, NEAR Core, 2021, UNESCO, 2023, and Transcend, 2023.
Trade-offs. Cultural variance → translations, cultural-competence training, and periodic review.

3) Scope & Definitions

Rationale. Scope = where rules apply; definitions = who is bound and how. These reduce arbitrariness and aid portability across forums and on-chain actions (UNESCO, 2023; OECD, 2014).
In the draft. Covered on-chain (proposal, screening, stake-weighted voting, treasury), off-chain (forums, Discord/Telegram, calls, GitHub), events (hackathons/AMAs), with roles (members, delegates, moderators, contractors, screening committee).

4) Agreed & Unacceptable Behaviours

Rationale. Positive norms + clear prohibitions reduce discretion and signaling ambiguity (Mozilla, 2021; Contributor Covenant, 2023; Django, 2023).
In the draft. We list exemplary behaviors (reasoned voting, COI disclosure, respectful comms) and prohibitions (harassment, doxxing, fraud, retaliation). DAO analogs: Uniswap, 2023, Arbitrum, 2023, Optimism, 2023, ZKsync, 2023.
Mitigation. Treat lists as illustrative; rely on severity matrix and precedent.

5) Reporting Channels & Intake

Rationale. Lowering friction increases reporting; standardized intake advances procedural justice (Django, 2023; UNESCO, 2023).
In the draft (used). Channels: encrypted form, coc@houseofstake.org, direct moderators at events/calls. Intake standards: acknowledgement of report receivement, categorize by harassment/fraud/COI/operational dispute, urgency assessment, and confidentiality.
Trade-offs. Anonymity vs. verification → gated intake, audit logs.

6) Moderation Standards

Rationale. Impartiality, cultural/linguistic competence, secure record-keeping, and timeliness are due-process pillars (UNESCO, 2023; Santa Clara Principles, 2018).
In the draft. Impartial investigators with COI recusals; target 14-day resolution (extensions documented); secure documentation; AI-assisted tooling under human oversight.
Trade-offs. Ambitious timelines → allow justified extensions with transparency.

7) Sanctions Ladder

Rationale. Proportional, predictable consequences deter harm while enabling restoration (UNESCO, 2023; Contributor Covenant, 2023).
In the draft. Warning → moderated participation → temporary suspension → removal, with a severity matrix (intent, impact, history, cooperation). Restorative options (apologies, mediated resolution) when safe.

8) Appeals & Review

Rationale. Checks and balances reinforce legitimacy and learning (UNESCO, 2023; Tan et al., 2024).
In the draft. One-round time-bound appeal to an independent panel; decisions summarized (privacy-preserving) in transparency reports.
Trade-offs. Process load → limit scope and set deadlines.

9) Anti-Retaliation

Rationale. Without anti-retaliation rules, reporting chills and harms persist.
In the draft. Explicit prohibition on retaliation against reporters/witnesses; penalties for bad-faith reports.

10) Accessibility & Inclusion

Rationale. Inclusion is operational: languages, accessibility accommodations, cultural competence (UNESCO, 2023; Schneider, 2023).
In the draft. Commitment to translations, plain-language summaries, and diversified panels. NEAR precedents: NEAR Foundation, 2023; NDC CoC, 2023.

11) Cultural & Jurisdictional Awareness

Rationale. Respect for local law and culture supports legitimacy in a global community (UNESCO, 2023).
In the draft. Jurisdiction-aware guidance (e.g., defamation/privacy variance), with modular adoption by sub-communities. Open community analog: Creative Commons, 2020.

12) Power Imbalances & Conflicts of Interest

Rationale. Stake-weight amplifies capture risks; disclosure + recusal are baseline.
In the draft. COI registry, vote rationales; delegates disclose affiliations/holdings—aligned with Uniswap, 2023, Arbitrum, 2023, Scroll, 2023, and integrity norms from Transparency International, 2021.

13) Data Protection & Privacy

Rationale. Data minimization, secure storage, breach transparency, and due-process in data use build trust (UNESCO, 2023; Santa Clara Principles—“Numbers/Notice/Appeal”, 2018).
In the draft. Minimal collection during reports; strict access controls; retention schedule; anonymized case reporting.

14) Education & Onboarding

Rationale. Ongoing training reduces incidents and increases governance quality (UNESCO, 2023; Schneider, 2023).
In the draft. Orientation pack, moderator handbook, and scenario-based examples (e.g., handling COI, harassment, vote-buying).

15) Transparency & Reporting

Rationale. Publishing aggregated metrics and budget/time data drives accountability and learning (Brookings, 2022; Santa Clara Principles, 2018).
In the draft. Annual CoC Transparency Report (cases, outcomes, timelines, COI disclosures), and public changelog. (RDR can inform indicator design: Ranking Digital Rights, 2022.)

16) Governance & Amendments

Rationale. Ratification, amendment cadence, and changelogs operationalize consent and adaptability (Tan et al., 2024; Schneider, 2023).
In the draft. Public RFC, feedback window, snapshot-style ratification vote, and annual review. Precedent: Uniswap/Arbitrum RFCs.

17) Interoperability & Versioning

Rationale. Modularity and open licensing speed cross-DAO learning while preserving attribution (Schneider, 2023; Creative Commons, 2020).
In the draft. Version tags and diffable changelog; portability notes for DAOs adopting the HoS CoC.

18) AI Ethics & Agent Regulation

Rationale. When AI assists moderation, it must be explainable, auditable, contestable, and human-overseen (Gabriel, 2020; Transcend, 2023; CIGI, 2021).
In the draft. Human-in-the-loop policy; model-usage disclosure; appeal path for AI-flagged decisions; audit logs.

References for Design Rationale

References

Arbitrum DAO. (2023). Arbitrum DAO code of conduct. 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. https://www.cigionline.org/articles/algorithmic-content-moderation-brings-new-opportunities-and-risks/

Contributor Covenant. (2023). Version 3.0. https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/3/0/code_of_conduct/

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

Django Software Foundation. (2023). Conduct & enforcement manual. https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/

Gabriel, I. (2020). 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

NEAR Core. (2021). Community etiquette. https://gov.near.org/t/community-etiquette/4417

NEAR Foundation. (2023). Community guidelines. https://gov.near.org/t/community-guidelines/5
NDC Transparency Commission. (2023). NDC code of conduct. https://gov.near.org/t/ndc-code-of-conduct-by-transparency-commission/36780

OECD. (2014). Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies.https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0406

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

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

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

Schneider, N. (2023). Governable Spaces. 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. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.00081

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. 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

7. Quality Control (QC) Report for the House of Stake Code of Conduct

Click to Expand: Quality Control Report

The HoS Code of Conduct (CoC) is ready for community ratification with minor edits. It is well-anchored in institutional standards and governance scholarship, procedurally sound (intake → investigation → sanctions → appeal), and operationally inclusive (translations, cultural competence, accessibility). Two minor improvements remain: (1) add a few more hackathon precedents as concrete examples in Reporting/Intake, and (2) formalize a translation cadence to manage volunteer bandwidth.

Objective

This QC evaluates the HoS CoC for rigor, consistency, and ratification readiness, ensuring:

Review dimensions & findings

2.1 Anchoring & Evidence

  • What we checked: Each major section cites at least one institutional and one literature source; NEAR/DAO precedents are used where appropriate.

  • What we found: :white_check_mark: Consistent anchoring to UNESCO, 2023 for due process, transparency, appeal, and cultural competence; to Schneider, 2023 and Tan et al., 2024 for governance design; to Santa Clara Principles, 2018 and RDR, 2022 for transparency reporting benchmarks.

  • Gaps (minor): :warning: Hackathon references (Hack Humanity personal communications) appear, but more explicit examples could be added in the Reporting/Intake section to illustrate on-site escalation vs remote reporting patterns.

Procedural Justice

  • What we checked: Presence and clarity of intake, triage, moderation standards, sanctions ladder, and appeals.

  • What we found: :white_check_mark: acknowledgment, categorization, and urgency assessment; impartial investigations with COI recusals; a graduated sanctions ladder; time-boxed appeals to an independent panel—consistent with Django, 2023, Contributor Covenant, 2023, and UNESCO, 2023.

  • Risk & mitigation: The 14-day resolution target may be ambitious; the draft already allows documented extensions—retain and spotlight this clause.

Inclusivity & Accessibility

  • What we checked: Multilingual access, cultural/linguistic competence, and disability accommodations.

  • What we found: :white_check_mark: Requirements align with UNESCO, 2023 and OECD, 2014; NEAR’s multilingual practice is acknowledged (NDC, 2023).

  • Risk & mitigation: Volunteer translation bandwidth could delay updates → prioritize top languages and set a quarterly translation cycle.

Transparency & Accountability

  • What we checked: Conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosures, vote rationales, transparency reporting.

  • What we found: :white_check_mark: COI rules cover delegates and committees (aligned with Scroll, 2023); annual transparency reports (cases, outcomes, timelines) align with Brookings, 2022 and content-moderation norms from Santa Clara Principles, 2018; indicator thinking can draw from RDR, 2022.

  • Note: Publish an anonymization protocol to mitigate re-identification risk.

AI Ethics & Governance

  • What we checked: Explainability, auditability, human oversight, and appeal in AI-assisted moderation.

  • What we found: :white_check_mark: Human-in-the-loop, model-usage disclosure, audit logs, and contestability align with Gabriel, 2020, Transcend, 2023, and CIGI, 2021.

  • Maturity: Staged adoption (human-only → AI-assisted) is appropriate for NEAR’s governance context.

Risks & mitigations (what could go wrong, how we prevent it)

Risk Description Mitigation
Centralization / Elite capture Stake-weighted voting entrenches incumbents. Rotating seats, term limits, mandatory COI disclosures, minority appeals. Sources: Schneider, 2023.
Process opacity Uncertainty about how cases are handled. Publish plain-language playbooks, annual transparency reports, and an appeals explainer. Sources: UNESCO, 2023; Santa Clara, 2018.
Automation bias Over-trust in AI flags or false positives. Human-in-the-loop, audit logs, contestability & redress. Sources: Gabriel, 2020; Transcend, 2023.
Cultural misalignment Rules misfit diverse NEAR communities. Multilingual forms, culturally diverse panels, regional exemplars. Sources: UNESCO, 2023.
Privacy / re-identification Case stats could expose individuals. Aggregation, k-anonymity thresholds, differential privacy where possible. Sources: Santa Clara, 2018; RDR, 2022.

Overall assessment & next steps

Assessment: The CoC is academically rigorous, operationally robust, and community-ready. It integrates institutional anchors, DAO/open-source best practice, and NEAR-specific norms with a forward-looking AI governance posture.

Low-lift final edits before ratification:

  1. Reporting/Intake examples: Add 2–3 short hackathon-style scenarios (on-site escalation, safety incidents, IP disputes) drawing on internal precedents (Hack Humanity, 2025a; 2025b).

  2. Anonymization note: Insert a brief privacy footnote in the Transparency clause on aggregation & thresholds.

Ratification checklist:

  • Post RFC with change-log and window for comments

  • Snapshot-style community vote

  • Publish moderator handbook (intake → triage → investigation)

  • Release sanctions severity matrix and appeals explainer

  • Commit to annual transparency report (metrics aligned to Santa Clara/RDR concepts)

References for Quality Check Report

References

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/

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

NEAR Core. (2021). Community etiquette. NEAR Governance Forum. https://gov.near.org/t/community-etiquette/4417

NEAR Foundation. (2023). Community guidelines. NEAR Governance Forum. https://gov.near.org/t/community-guidelines/5

NDC Transparency Commission. (2023). NDC code of conduct by transparency commission. NEAR Governance Forum. https://gov.near.org/t/ndc-code-of-conduct-by-transparency-commission/36780

OECD. (2014). Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies. OECD Publishing. OECD Legal Instruments

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. https://transcend.io/blog/ai-ethics

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

1 Like