NEAR House of Stake - Interim Constitution

House of Stake Hack Humanity
1

:classical_building: NEAR House of Stake - Interim Constitution

Version: v0.1.0 (Draft for Community Review)
Status: Interim Constitution
Expiration: May 31, 2026

Introduction

:ballot_box_with_ballot: WHAT - The Purpose of the Constitution

NEAR House of Stake Constitution represents an agreement for how decisions are made as a single collective entity.
Once ratified, it defines how we transform many inputs such as proposals, votes, and stake, into legitimate actions.
By reducing ambiguity in collective intent, the Constitution enables structured, transparent decision-making to begin.

House of Stake is designed to give NEAR holders meaningful voice through stake-weighted governance, where locking tokens as veNEAR increases influence in proportion to commitment.

For onchain governance systems, 1-token-1-vote remains the only enforceable and sybil-resistant model for legitimacy, because onchain systems cannot yet guarantee one-person-one-vote without sacrificing privacy.

The Constitution provides the structure that translates voting outcomes into clear directions to the NEAR House of Stake Foundation and community, building accountability and shared intent across all participants.

WHY Now

Ratification of this Interim Constitution will be the first formal act of governance by NEAR House of Stake participants.

WHY Interim

The interim version serves two key purposes:

  1. Enables Immediate Governance: It will be formally proposed for ratification when the House of Stake smart contracts launch. Once ratified, it establishes temporary, legitimate rules of engagement, empowering collective decision-making to begin.

  2. Foundation for Co-Creation: It acts as the starting point for the co-creation process that will produce a long-term, collaboratively drafted version to replace the interim Constitution before its expiration on May 31st, 2026.

Legitimacy

This interim version ensures that early governance actions are legitimate, structured, and aligned with NEAR’s broader Governance Transition Program, which moves through the phases of:

Assembly → Alignment → Activation → Autonomy

Note: Many in the community may find issues they would like to change in this interim constitution. At the end of this document Hack Humanity has included a list of items to consider updating as the community co-creation process unfolds.

This phased approach balances the need for immediate functionality with the long-term goal of fully decentralized, community-first governance.

Process

The process for creating the Interim Constitution is based on:

  1. The goal to bootstrap House of Stake with a minimum viable constitution
  2. Adherence to the NEAR Foundation provided starting mandate (view here)
  3. Alignment to the original Gauntlet proposal - NEAR House of Stake Governance Proposal (August 7, 2024)
  4. Referential integrity with the Bylaws of the NEAR House of Stake Foundation and Memorandum & Articles of Association

Additional Resource: Q&A: Understanding the Legal Structure of the House of Stake (HoS) may prove useful in understanding the legal documents and their relationship to the House of Stake DAO.

This phased approach is necessary to match the timeline for House of Stake V1 Mainnet launch.

First; the Interim Constitution is ratified to bootstrap the House of Stake DAO.
In parallel the Community-created Constitution will be developed during it’s Co-Creation Cycle - once this process completes, it will be ratified and replace this Interim version.

NEAR House of Stake - Interim Constitution (v0.1.0)

Article 1 — Foundational Provisions

1.1. Purpose
The NEAR House of Stake (“HoS”) is the stake-weighted governance system of NEAR that exists to preserve neutrality, legitimacy, and resilience by enabling meaningful, stake-aligned participation.

1.2. Binding Effect
Rules may be enforced onchain or off-chain; all rules adopted under this Constitution are binding.

1.3. Supremacy
This Constitution is the supreme governance document for NEAR House of Stake - the decentralized network of veNEAR tokenholders. In the event of conflict with any policy, charter, or guideline, this Constitution supersedes their controls unless amended under Article 9. (Referring to DAO ratified policy & charters, excludes NEAR House of Stake Foundation bylaws.)

Article 2 — Mandate

2.1 Economic Governance

2.1.1. Treasury management
2.1.2. Programs to support economic sustainability
2.1.3. Economic parameters:

  • 2.1.3.1. Inflation
  • 2.1.3.2. Fee switch for AI products, intents, etc.

2.2 Technical Governance

2.2.1. Incremental, narrow scope to begin
2.2.2. e.g., MPC signers for chain signatures
2.2.3. Determine which NEAR Enhancement Proposals (NEPs) should be escalated to HoS
2.2.4. Anything that can’t be governed on GitHub

2.3 Build Legitimacy

2.3.1. Maximize the amount of NEAR/veNEAR in the system
2.3.2. Participation by broad subset of the community
2.3.3. Decentralise Screening Committee
2.3.4. Put in place policy: mission, vision, values, constitution, charters, policy, co-creation cycles

2.4 Grow Engagement and Ecosystem Health

2.4.1. In the DAO, in governance, in the protocol, in NEAR ecosystem more broadly
2.4.2. Decentralized stakeholders participate in governance

2.5 Anti-Mandates

The following are explicit anti-mandates, i.e., things to avoid:

2.5.1. Grants for the sake of grants. House of Stake won’t have an official “grants program” for now, and there won’t be a free-for-all for funding requests. Proposals that target the above mandate items may, of course, include requests for funding for specific uses.

2.5.2. Full technical governance of the NEAR protocol, or of other products including Chain Signatures, NEAR Intents, and NEAR AI. These products are all extraordinarily complex and House of Stake doesn’t have the necessary technical expertise, and isn’t well positioned, to own this anytime soon. We’ll start with less complex technical governance tasks, such as the one outlined above: governing the Chain Signatures MPC signer set, and build capacity to take on more technical governance in the future.

Article 3 — Membership & Rights

3.1. Citizens
All NEAR holders are Citizens by default; they must lock their NEAR or eligible liquid staking token to become a veNEAR holder (registered voter) with rights to delegate or participate where allowed.

Official NEAR House of Stake Contracts:

venear-contract (venear.dao)
voting-contract (vote.dao)

3.2. Registered Voters
veNEAR holders may submit and vote on proposals, and delegate/self-delegate.

3.2.1. Voter Rights

Registered Voters have the following rights:

  • 3.2.1.1. The right to transparent access to governance records
  • 3.2.1.2. They may submit and vote on proposals in accordance with the Proposal Process Policy
  • 3.2.1.3. They may vote to approve or amend Constitutional Policy & Charters, Bylaws, and governance procedures
  • 3.2.1.4. They may vote to appoint or remove Directors and veto Security Council actions
  • 3.2.1.5. They may raise concerns about delegates or governance matters
  • 3.2.1.6. They may expect votes to be binding unless a Near House of Stake Foundation Director justifiably rejects a proposal due to:
    • 3.2.1.6.1. Violations of law or fiduciary duties
    • 3.2.1.6.2. Conflict with NEAR House of Stake Foundation Articles or Bylaws
    • 3.2.1.6.3. Risk of legal or reputational harm

3.2.2. Terminology Alignment

For the avoidance of doubt, all references to “veNEAR holder,” “Registered Voter,” or “Citizen (veNEAR participant)” are equivalent during the interim period.

Article 4 — Institutions

4.1. Endorsed Delegates

Endorsed delegates are a subset of overall delegates which are selected by the Screening Committee based on the endorsed delegate application process. All delegates represent veNEAR holders; Endorsed Delegates meet heightened transparency and activity standards.

4.1.1. Endorsed Delegates Mandate

  • 4.1.1.1. Vote on proposals and justify their votes
  • 4.1.1.2. Must participate in 80%+ of votes monthly
  • 4.1.1.3. Help bridge community input and execution of governance
  • 4.1.1.4. Adhere to the Endorsed Delegate Charter

4.2. Screening Committee

Selected by NEAR Foundation in the interim; transitions via a community elected process by ratification of a co-created charter.

4.2.1. Screening Committee Mandate

  • 4.2.1.1. Elect Endorsed Delegates
  • 4.2.1.2. Vet and pre-screen community proposals
  • 4.2.1.3. Remove Delegates who fail to meet responsibilities or act against NEAR values
  • 4.2.1.4. Adhere to the Screening Committee Charter

4.3. Security Council

4.3.1. Mandate

  • 4.3.1.1. Handle on-chain security and integrity operations
  • 4.3.1.2. Execute Emergency Actions (e.g. patching critical vulnerabilities)
  • 4.3.1.3. Approve Non-Emergency Actions like protocol upgrades (which must also be approved by Delegates)
  • 4.3.1.4. Veto proposals that do not align with HoS mandate
  • 4.3.1.5. Call Emergency Meetings if needed

4.3.2. Safeguards

  • 4.3.2.1. Emergency Actions require a 75% supermajority vote of security council members
  • 4.3.2.2. All actions must be followed by transparency reports to the community

4.3.3. Appointment/Removal

Appointment/Removal by NEAR Foundation.

4.3.4. Escalation

Refer to NEAR House of Stake Foundation bylaws for handling of unaddressed issues.

4.4. NEAR House of Stake Foundation

4.4.1. Legal Documentation

4.4.2. Purpose

The NEAR House of Stake Foundation exists to:

  • 4.4.2.1. Empower the NEAR community to lead
  • 4.4.2.2. Translate community intent into legal and operational action
  • 4.4.2.3. Ensure decisions are carried out safely, fairly, and transparently
  • 4.4.2.4. Provide checks and balances between community, directors, and oversight bodies

4.4.3. Director Mandate

The HoS Foundation currently has one Director.

  • 4.4.3.1. Manage the day-to-day business of the Foundation
  • 4.4.3.2. Implement Tokenholder-approved proposals unless legally required to veto them
  • 4.4.3.3. All execution authority for approved proposals rests solely with the NEAR House of Stake Foundation; Committees may only recommend
  • 4.4.3.4. Authorize expenses and execute contracts
  • 4.4.3.5. Ensure the Foundation complies with all applicable laws

4.4.4. Director Appointment/Removal

Appointed and removed by successful passing of a constitutional decision proposal.

4.4.5. Supervisors Mandate

  • 4.4.5.1. Provide oversight of Foundation Directors
  • 4.4.5.2. Review records, attend general meetings, and request reports
  • 4.4.5.3. Ensure Directors are acting in the interest of the Foundation and the community

4.4.6. Supervisor Appointment/Removal

  • 4.4.6.1. Appointed by Directors; required if the Foundation has no members
  • 4.4.6.2. Removed by resignation, conflict of interest, or as outlined in their terms
  • 4.4.6.3. Can be overridden or removed by successful passing of a standard decision proposal

4.5. NEAR Foundation

  • 4.5.1. Screening committee & security council appointment during interim
  • 4.5.2. Funding & operational support through launch & stabilization at their discretion
  • 4.5.3. Transitions responsibilities to the NEAR HoS Foundation upon ratification of new policy & charters which reassign current roles
  • 4.5.4. Is not managed or directed by NEAR House of Stake voting

Article 5 — Integrity, Conflicts of Interest, and Accountability

5.1. Disclosure
All governance actors (Delegates, Committee/Council members, Foundation directors) must disclose material conflicts prior to decision-making; failure to disclose may be grounds for sanction or removal.

5.2. Removal for Cause
Delegates, Committee members, or Council members may be removed for misconduct, undisclosed conflicts, or failure of duty by Decision Proposal, with notice and opportunity to respond and appeal the issue to the screening committee.

5.3. Transparency Duties
Institutions publish meeting notes, rationales, and decisions; community reporting is mandatory.

Article 6 — Legislative Procedure (Proposals & Voting)

6.1. Proposal Process
The detailed proposal creation, deliberation, and voting lifecycle is governed by the Proposal Process Policy.

6.1.1. Implementation Sequence
Proposals shall follow the sequence:

7 Day Deliberation Period → Screening filter → On-chain Vote → Security Council 72-hour Review → Foundation Execution

6.2. Eligibility to Propose
Any Registered Voter (veNEAR holder) or Endorsed Delegate may submit proposals. All proposals must undergo a minimum deliberation period, not less than 7 days, before a binding vote.

6.3. Screening
The Screening Committee must approve proposals to be eligible for an onchain vote.

6.4. Voting, Thresholds & Quorum

Proposal Type Voting Requirement Additional Requirements
6.4.1 Sensing Proposal May utilize any methodology for assessment that serves the purpose of the inquiry N/A
6.4.2 Standard Decision Proposal Simple majority of votes cast AND passing by screening committee
6.4.3 Constitutional Decision Proposal Two-thirds (67%) supermajority AND a majority vote from the screening committee publicly posted on the governance forum PRIOR to screening committee onchain approval

6.4.4. Quorum: Will align to the technical quorum settings put in place by the onchain system.

6.5. Challenge & Implementation
Results are recorded publicly; implementation follows a public timeline; deviations or Security Council interventions are explained on-record.

6.6. Conflicting Measures
If approved measures conflict (as decided in retrospect by the screening committee), the measure with higher veNEAR support prevails.

6.7. Legal/Technical Feasibility
If execution is impossible or unlawful, the HoS Foundation must publish justification within 14 days and propose a path forward.

Article 7 — Treasury & Financial Stewardship

7.1. Treasuries
The Interim DAO Treasury is controlled by the NEAR House of Stake Foundation and is located at __________, an onchain DAO Controlled Treasury will be created with a future software version update.

7.2. Custody & Control
The NEAR House of Stake Foundation executes funding decisions validly approved under Article 6, subject to Cayman legal and compliance obligations and technical feasibility. (Including but not limited to KYC/AML & OFAC screening)

7.3. Interim Adjustments
NEAR House of Stake Foundation may adjust fund release schedules for passed proposals to minimize risk of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Article 8 — Emergency Powers

8.1. Trigger & Scope
The Security Council may act to respond to urgent threats or vulnerabilities and coordinate emergency measures.

8.2. Notice & Review
The Council must inform the community after intervention.

8.3. Veto Period
The Security Council shall have a 72-hour review window following any successful vote to veto or suspend implementation where security or legal risk is identified.

Article 9 — Transition & Interim Arrangements

9.1. Interim Policies
Interim policy set (including this Constitution in interim form) expires May 31, 2026 unless ratified. If a successor constitution is not ratified, all NEAR House of Stake funding stops because the Foundation cannot receive legal direction to take action.

9.2. Screening Committee
The screening committee will be replaced using a community-involved selection process.

Article 10 — Dissolution

10.1. Authority
Dissolution requires a constitutional amendment and would require a succession plan to allocate any remaining and/or future treasury. The supremacy for dissolution is the NEAR House of Stake Foundation Bylaws.

Article 11 — Interpretation & Dispute Resolution

11.1. Interpretation
Where text is ambiguous, interpret to maximize neutrality, participation, transparency, and feasibility.

11.2. Review Mechanism
The community may establish an independent review/arbitration panel by Decision Proposal to resolve constitutional disputes.

11.3. Dispute Resolution
Where disagreement arises regarding the meaning or intent of any constitutional policy or charter clause, particularly in novel or gray-area situations, the Screening Committee shall deliberate and decide by vote and the result must be confirmed by the Foundation Directors & Head of Governance. The resulting interpretation must be recorded in the Transparency Thread and serves as binding precedent until formally amended or superseded. In the event of continued dispute requiring binding arbitration, refer to the NEAR House of Stake Foundation Bylaws.

Constitutional Policy and Charters

The Constitution includes, and is not limited to the following supporting policy and charters:

The above Policy and Charter documents will be posted each with separate Forum posts shortly & cross-referenced here.

:speaking_head: Call to Action

Community participation is essential to establishing the legitimacy and effectiveness of this governance framework.

Feedback

Feedback below this post is welcome now.
Note - Feedback provided before the Mainnet V1 launch may be considered but is not guaranteed to be included in the Interim Constitution, however your feedback will be considered in the Community co-created version of the Constitution.

Timeline

Date Milestone
October 10 Constitution Co-creation Cycle 1 Begins
October 20 Target Constition Co-creation Workshop Date
October 28 Open Feedback Period Ends
November 4 Constitution Co-creation Cycle 1 Ends

Conclusion

The Interim Constitution is required for the House of Stake DAO to begin collective decision making.

It will be replaced by a Community Co-created version.

Your participation now shapes the foundation for NEAR’s next era of decentralized governance.

Below is a nonexhaustive list of Key Focus Areas to consider for Expanded Legitimacy in the replacement Community Co-created Constitution version:

Addendum: Key Focus Areas to consider for Expanded Legitimacy

1. Define Clear Evolution Pathways

Specify how and when interim governance bodies transition to elected, decentralized, or algorithmically managed forms. Ensures institutional adaptability and long-term legitimacy.

2. Structure Low Stakes Experimentation Environments

Consider the unique requirements and needs of humans and AI working together to co-govern and co-operate House of Stake. Design subordinate governance structures where experimentation in low stakes “test governance” environments can be adopted if successful and remove risk from critical paths.

3. Establish Feedback Circles and Audit Loops

Embed regular system audits, cultural reviews, and community surveys to detect misalignment between formal rules and lived behavior. Design roles representative of specific stakeholder groups to increase access to different perspectives.

4. Track and Publish Legitimacy & Mission Metrics

Use transparent metrics — participation rates, delegate diversity, proposal throughput - as continuous indicators of community legitimacy and trust. DAO Self-Awareness checks that House of Stake is not doing governance for governance sake, but decisions and actions further the House of Stake Mission, Vision, Values.

5. Strengthen Conflict Resolution and Fair Process

Define clear escalation triggers, roles, and enforcement mechanisms for disputes, including transparent removal and appeal procedures.

6. Incentivize Alignment and Participation

Implement reputation- or token-based rewards for meaningful contributions, focusing on quality engagement and collaborative policy design.

7. Balance Efficiency with Inclusion

Model human coordination costs — limit bureaucracy, simplify onboarding, and provide meaningful opportunities for tokenholders of all sizes to participate and contribute.

8. Guard Against Elite Capture

Introduce rotation, term limits, and public accountability reports to prevent concentration of influence and ensure equitable representation.

9. Preserve Institutional and Cultural Memory

Create a shared archive of decisions, rationales, and outcomes to strengthen continuity and reduce repetitive re-litigation.

10. Foster Cultural and Psychological Resilience

Reinforce shared values - trust, respect, curiosity - and promote psychological safety so dissent and diversity of thought strengthen rather than divide the community.

11. Model Power and Decision Flows

Map influence across all stages (proposal → screening → ratification → implementation) to prevent centralization, bottlenecks, or opaque control.

:memo: Authorship & Acknowledgements

Authored by: @KlausBrave & @disruptionjoe - @HackHumanity
Review and feedback from: House of Stake Core team, NEAR Foundation, Gauntlet, Agora

8 Likes
2

It’s half day left until mainnet launch

3

At the same time, any actions can be reviewed through a proposal in HoS and then ratified by HoS through a voting.

1 Like
4

Interim policy set (including this Constitution in interim form) expires May 31, 2026 or early unless Community-driven policy will be ratified. If a successor constitution is not ratified, all NEAR House of Stake funding stops because the Foundation cannot receive legal direction to take action.

5

we should add “Security” in here, so that it is clear we are talking about the Security Council.

2 Likes
6

Thanks for all the feedback so far!

We’re running a Community Co-Creation Workshop this coming Monday to discuss and integrate the topics raised so far, elaborate further on what would be needed to evolve the Interim Constitution and get any more feedback you have.

Community Co-Creation Workshops Mon 27 Oct
Community Co-Creation Workshops Mon 27 Oct1920Ă—1080 154 KB

How To Get Involved

  • Workshop on Constitution: Monday 27th October 19:00–20:30 UTC
  • Register and add event to your calendar: [Register here]
5 Likes
7

Thank you to the @HackHumanity and HoS Core team for the work on this Interim Constitution. This a strong proposal and provides the HoS the foundation for operating and reiterating with an on-chain vote at a later time. Here are several items that I see as being some of the stronger points:

The inclusion of the explicit anti-mandates (article 2.5) is a strong addition since it provides the DAO the guardrails to prevent scope creep and gives the HoS the direction on what to focus on.

I also see that there is strong integrity and accountability (articles 5 and 6.7) that provides safeguards and clarity from a decision proposal that includes mandatory justification, conflict disclosure, and a process for removal for cause.

The roles of the Endorsed delegates, delegates (non-endorsed), Screening Committee, and Security Council create a sophisticated, multi-layered governance system that encourages participation, filters low-quality proposals, and enables emergency action, as long as the intent is for a progressive decentralization that allows for on-chain voting for Screening Committee and Security Council roles.

There are also some areas that I see being not as clear in this proposal with some alternative suggestions on how to make it stronger:

Quorum Ambiguity (article 6.4.4) - this section states that the quorum “will align to the technical quorum settings put in place by the on-chain system.” However,
a low or opaque quorum creates a major vulnerability to governance attacks or can allow for the passing of proposals with minimum participation.

To strengthen this section, I would define now the “interim minimum quorum” and amend article 6.4.3 (Constitutional Decision proposal) to include a numerical quorum requirement, such as “AND at least 4.5% of all voteable veNEAR token must participate (Yes, No, or Abstain)”. Using the threshold of 4.5% is a common safeguard, that is used for example in Arbitrum).

And I would also update 6.4.2 to mandate a lower quorum for Standard Decision proposal that requires at “least a 3% of all voteable veNEAR tokens to participate.”

The Constitution frequently defers to external documents, including Charters (Screening Committee, Endorsed Delegate *(which delegates (i.e. non-endorsed) should be added to the Constitution)), the Proposal Process Policy, Foundation Bylaws, and the Articles of Association. However, for a HoS community member/delegate this requires that they must read and cross-reference five separate legal documents (some that are not currently DAO ratified), to even understand how to participate in the HoS.

A better solution (and maybe the intent) is to create one Governance Handbook (ratified by a Standard Decision Proposal) that provides a simple, cross-referenced, and non-legal summary of all external documents, demonstrating how HoS governance works on one single, easy-to-read page.

Looking forward to further development on this Interim Constitution. Thks!

2 Likes
8

In fairness the community should have some direct say here. This responsibility needs to have direct community influence.

1 Like
9

There should be a term attached to this role and the option to be re-elected.

10

Who is this person? Typically this would be someone who holds a Cayman passport?

11

In Article 5- Integrity, Conflicts of Interest, and Accountability, the current language is too general. In a small ecosystem, nearly everyone has some overlap of interests (e.g., multiple DAO roles, partnerships, or personal ties). Without clearer definitions, this can lead to ambiguity and inconsistent enforcement.

Fix:
Either:

Expand Article 5 with more detailed definitions and procedures for handling conflicts of interest, or

Create a separate “Conflict of Interest Policy” outlining types of conflicts, disclosure process, and resolution steps.

Evgeny

1 Like
12

please provide an example of this eventuality.

14

House of Stake Constitution Co-Creation Workshop Summary

Date: October 27, 2025
Facilitator: @disruptionjoe (Hack Humanity)

Overview

On October 27, we hosted a collaborative workshop focused on advancing the House of Stake Constitution — the foundational document defining the architecture and governance principles of House of Stake.

The purpose of the session was to collect structured feedback on the current interim version of the Constitution, identify key areas of ambiguity, and set priorities for the first community draft.

This session was not about finalizing the text — it was about initiating a sustainable co-creation process: discussion → synthesis → iteration → review.

Workshop Format

After a short introduction, participants reviewed the Constitution individually and provided feedback on a shared Miro board:

  • Red notes — issues, ambiguities, or risks
  • Green notes — ideas, suggestions, or additions

Participants then divided into two smaller groups to cluster insights and identify common themes.
The session concluded with a group synthesis of key findings.

Key Topics and Outcomes

1. Clarity and Interpretation

Participants noted several vague or subjective terms (e.g., “reasonable timeframe,” “narrow scope”) that could lead to inconsistent interpretation.

Recommendations included:

  • Introducing a glossary of key terms
  • Defining a process for resolving interpretive disputes
  • Structuring powers, rights, and procedures in a standardized format

2. Roles and Institutions

The discussion raised the question of what qualifies as an “institution” — whether it refers only to existing entities like NEAR Foundation, or also to new governance bodies within House of Stake (such as the Screening Committee or Appeals Panel).

Recommendations:

  • Clarify distinctions between institutions, working groups, and service structures
  • Define procedures for creation, amendment, and dissolution of institutions
  • Clearly establish boundaries between House of Stake governance and the wider NEAR ecosystem

3. Economic Governance

Participants highlighted uncertainty about which decisions directly affect economic mechanisms and who holds the relevant authority.

Proposals included:

  • Visualizing governance relationships and flows of authority
  • Clarifying which decisions fall under threshold governance versus delegated authority
  • Linking governance decisions to validator actions, treasury management, and protocol upgrades

4. Conflicts of Interest

This topic was identified as a priority area. Participants agreed that the Constitution should outline key principles but avoid over-regulation.

Proposed actions:

  • Develop a separate Conflict of Interest Policy for detailed procedures
  • Keep the Constitution focused on transparency, independence, and disclosure
  • Include a clear mechanism for self-recusal and verification

5. Proposal Flow and Decision-Making

The second group focused on the structure of the proposal process.

Key suggestions:

  • Introduce a proposal classification system:
    • Emergency / Non-emergency
    • Material / Non-material
  • Define different timelines and quorum requirements for each category
  • Consider adopting a cyclical voting process (e.g., monthly governance cycles)
  • Include a cooldown period after decisions to allow for appeals
  • Gradually transition to on-chain execution where feasible

6. Progressive Decentralization

While the interim Constitution acknowledges a transition toward decentralization, it does not specify how that progression should occur.

It was proposed to add a Governance Roadmap outlining:

  • The phased transition toward an on-chain treasury
  • The development and evolution of governance institutions
  • Readiness criteria for each stage of decentralization

Reflections

The workshop demonstrated strong community engagement and thoughtful participation.
Discussions extended beyond language and structure to address the foundational principles of legitimacy, accountability, and adaptability in governance.

The key outcome was the initiation of a living co-creation process — transforming the Constitution from a static document into a shared framework shaped collectively by the House of Stake community.

Resources

Call to Action

The co-creation process is ongoing, and community input is essential.
If you’d like to contribute, share your comments and suggestions directly here on the Forum.
All feedback will be reviewed and considered in the next iteration of the Constitution.

Authored by: @haenko - HackHumanity

4 Likes
15

Thank you so much @haenko for this write up from the couple of working sessions. From my perspective, you’ve captured all the feedback and sentiment from those attendees. I’m looking forward to seeing the next revised version. Do you have a timeline of when that will be published? Tk u!

2 Likes
16

@disruptionjoe posted the below update on the GitHub card, posting it here as it outlines what’s happening next. @coffee-crusher I know you were at one of the workshops, so this is now more for others following this thread!

While a full draft (v0.1.3) of the Constitution is already complete, developing it required making several provisional design decisions up front. That approach helped prototype a coherent structure, but it also meant the document reflects assumptions that still need open community debate — especially around the key institutional relationships that give it legitimacy.

Rather than publishing the full text now and risking confusion about what’s fixed versus what’s still in motion, we’re focusing first on the Structural Alignment Discussion. This phase centers on the foundational questions that shape the Constitution’s spine — such as the design of the Screening Committee, its evolving role in governance, and how it interacts with Head of Governance and the Endorsed Delegates to ensure mutual checks and balances.

As these core structures become clearer through community dialogue, the Constitution will be updated accordingly and re-opened for full review and ratification.

In the meantime, open feedback is always welcome. You can contribute directly in the Constitution Structural Alignment Discussion thread.

1 Like
17

Thank you so much, I’ve also checked out the GitHub for the lasted updates. Appreciate your help! Tk u!