NEAR House of Stake - Mission, Vision & Values (MVV) - draft for community review

House of Stake Hack Humanity
,
1

Dear NEAR Community,

We’re pleased to share with you the below draft Mission, Vision & Values (MVV) v0.1.1 for House of Stake DAO and invite you to participate in cycle 1 of community feedback and co-creation.

These statements are a synthesis of pre-work, research, workshop outputs and small group drafting activities focused on articulating a Mission, Vision & Values for House of Stake, distinct and complementary to the overarching vision of NEAR.

As we move rapidly together to launch & operationalize the House of Stake DAO, these statements are intended to form a compelling purpose architecture for us all to rally around.

They should align & focus our energy and activities, while providing sufficient freedom & flexibility for diverse individual contributions.

  1. VISION: the powerful WHY articulating the change we want to create in the world
  2. MISSION: WHAT we are actually doing to make our vision a reality
  3. VALUES: things we care about that guide HOW we operate

An invitation to co-create

This post marks the start of co-creation cycle 1 for House of Stake’s MVV.

The way the statements are articulated below is designed to invite feedback and debate, with each component broken down into distinct elements for your critique.

Alternative options are offered up for your consideration, reflecting the diversity of perspectives we’ve heard and directions House of Stake could choose to focus towards.

Table of Contents

  1. MVV for House of Stake, draft v0.1.1
  2. Breaking it down: rationale & options
  3. What’s next?
    a. How and when to give feedback
    b. Questions to think about to give thoughtful feedback
    c. Poll
  4. Addendum: Drafting Methodology

MVV for House of Stake, draft v0.1.1

VISION:

1.1.  Decentralised governance for humanity-enhancing AI

MISSION:

2.1.  House of Stake's mission is
2.2.  to establish a new kind of governance system,
2.3.  co-created, co-operated and co-governed by NEAR owners and users,
2.4.  fully embracing AI,
2.5.  to be incorruptible, uncapturable and sovereign by default,
2.6.  and bring in the era of user-owned, humanity-enhancing AI

VALUES:

3.1.  Credible Neutrality
3.2.  Experimentation with Safety
3.3.  Builder & Business Centric
3.4.  Autonomy with Accountability
3.5.  Adaptive Governance
3.6.  Meaningful Participation
3.7.  Transparency with Dignity
3.8.  AI-Augmented, Human-Governed
3.9.  Public Goods as Growth Engines
3.10. Cultural Stickiness

Note (7 Oct): the above has been updated during co-creation cycle 1 from v0.1 to v0.1.1, removing Attributes to simplify down from VAMP to the more common MVV framework.

Breaking it down: rationale & options

VISION

The VISION is a witness view of what the world looks like 5-10 years from now if House of Stake is successful. It should be reviewed annually, especially at first, but we should expect it to evolve on multi-year timescales.

1.1. Decentralised governance for humanity-enhancing AI

Rationale

  • A short and clear articulation of the future we envisage
  • A governance system is what we are creating
  • It’s decentralised, in constrast to the centralised, concentrated power of Big Tech / Big State AI
  • We’re focused specifically on how AI is being manifested
  • Humanity-enhancing as a North Star as it is for the benefit of all humanity, present and future

Alternatives

These are presented here on a spectrum from WHY to WHAT:

# Statement Benefits
1.1.a Community-owned, humanity-enhancing AI for all Most general and focused on the why
1.1.b Decentralised governance for humanity-enhancing AI Concisely articulates the essence of HoS (what+why)
1.1.c Governance purpose-fit for the age of AI It’s because of and thanks to the age of AI that we can make this new form of governance work
1.1.d A user-owned future empowered by decentralised AI on NEAR Gets more specific with “user-owned” and “NEAR”
1.1.e Governance that keeps NEAR uncapturable — and aligns incentives for sustainable growth Most specific and focused on the what

Questions

  1. Should “user-owned” be part of the vision? (d)
  2. Or “community-owned”, one of the most frequently-mentioned words in the workshop? (a)
  3. Must “NEAR” be explicitly mentioned (d, e) or is our vision for HoS broader than just NEAR? (a, b, c)
  4. Is it crucial to have “decentralised” in there? (b, d)
  5. Should our vision indeed be strongly centred around AI? (a, b, c, d)
  6. Should “stake-weighted” be part of the vision? (it was hardly mentioned in the workshops so not included above)

MISSION

The MISSION is a statement declaring how we will make the vision a reality. This should be reviewed yearly. It serves as a basis for the next step in the ecosystem alignment process - aligning on measurable outcome goals for the next 3-12 months which are most likely to manifest the impacts described in the mission.

2.1. House of Stake's mission is

Rationale

  • Important to clarify this is the mission for House of Stake specifically, distinct from NEAR, for example

Alternatives

  • 2.1.b. NEAR House of Stake's mission is - if we want to be explicitly focused on NEAR, at least in the first year or so (though 2.3 covers that anyway)

2.2. to establish a new kind of governance system

Rationale

  • A governance system is what we are creating
  • Emphasises that we are inventing something new, together, for the world

Alternatives

  • 2.2.b. to establish a distributed governance system - may be important to qualify that it’s distributed, especially if we adopt a Vision that doesn’t include that word
  • 2.2.c. to establish an AI-native governance system - do we want to bring AI more to the fore here instead of in 3.4?
  • 2.2.d. to establish a stake-weighted governance system for NEAR - is it important to be explicit that it’s stake-weighted? And that it is for NEAR?

2.3. co-created, co-operated and co-governed by NEAR owners and users

Rationale

  • Clarifies who is on this mission and who it is for
  • The system is being created and governed not just by owners (like a corporation) but by a multi-stakeholder collective including where all users of the system can have a stake and a say in its workings

Alternatives

  • 2.3.b. co-created, co-operated and co-governed by the NEAR community - a more open declaration of who we serve, encompassing owners and users as well as other stakeholders
  • 2.3.c. co-created, co-operated and co-governed by NEAR owners, users and AI agents - is our vision actually that AI agents are also first-class citizens in governance, or would that be at odds with “humanity-enhancing”?

2.4. fully embracing AI

Rationale

  • We make maximum use of AI to enhance make the system as fair, neutral and efficient as possible

Alternatives

  • 2.4.b augmented by AI - making the role of AI clearer (to augment human participants)
  • 2.4.c to align incentives and direct resources - more specific about what we’re doing rather than how we’re doing it with AI

2.5. to be incorruptible, uncapturable and sovereign by default

Rationale

All three of these are critical characteristics for a DAO:

  • “Incorruptible” because rules and operations must be enforced by transparent smart contracts in such a way that avoids manipulation or subversion by bad actors
  • “Uncapturable” because it must be impossible for any single entity or group to seize overall control
  • “Sovereign” because the DAO must operate with full autonomy and self-governance, free from control by any authority or intermediary

Alternatives

  • 2.5.b to preserve neutrality, legitimacy and resilience - more positive phrasing around what we exist to achieve rather than what we aim to avoid
  • 2.5.c to progressively decentralise economic and technical governance of NEAR - more specific and aligned to the mandate in the Interim Constitution
  • 2.5.d maintaining legitimacy while creating compounding network effects and growth for NEAR - important to include a growth aspect in our mission?

2.6. and bring in the era of user-owned, humanity-enhancing AI

Rationale

  • Aligns the mission to the vision
  • Articulates the ultimate objective we are working towards
  • Owned by users
  • For the benefit of all of humanity i.e. the greater good

Alternatives

  • 2.6.b. and usher in the era of community-owned, humanity-enhancing AI - community rather than user-owned?
  • 2.6.c. and accelerate the growth of the user-owned AI economy - direct contribution to NEAR’s vision

VALUES

VALUES are things that contributors and users of House of Stake care about, in an opinionated way that actually helps us make decisions and clearly differentiates us from other governance systems.

3.1. Credible Neutrality

Principle: Governance must remain resistant to capture by individuals, institutions, or cartels.
Behavioral Test: Would this decision still hold if only a few top stakeholders coordinated against it?

3.2. Experimentation with Safety

Principle: Governance models, funding mechanisms, and AI tools are tested in lower-stakes environments before being merged into the main system.
Behavioral Test: Can this experiment fail without endangering the ecosystem’s integrity?

3.3. Builder & 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 lasting businesses?

3.4. Autonomy with Accountability

Principle: Workstreams and contributors have freedom to innovate, balanced with clear success gates and measurable outcomes.
Behavioral Test: Does this program have both the freedom to act and clear metrics to evaluate success?

3.5. Adaptive Governance

Principle: Governance should evolve iteratively, guided by feedback loops, 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?

3.6. Inclusive & Meaningful Participation

Principle: All stakeholders — large and small — must have meaningful ways to engage in governance. Influence at the top may be proportional to stake, but lower levels of governance provide opportunities where every voice can matter, keeping people engaged and invested.
Behavioral Test: Are we creating real roles for smaller stakeholders to contribute value, even if they don’t have significant voting weight at the meta-governance layer?

3.7. Transparency with Dignity

Principle: Decisions, funding, and performance are open and legible, while respecting privacy and personal boundaries.
Behavioral Test: Can the community easily understand this decision without it becoming surveillance or overreach?

3.8. AI-Augmented, Human-Governed

Principle: We embrace AI as a tool for more representative, efficient, and adaptive governance — augmenting human judgment without replacing human values.
Behavioral Test: Does this use of AI improve participation or decision quality while keeping humans in charge of values?

3.9. Public Goods as Growth Engines

Principle: Investment in shared infrastructure, tools, and governance systems is not overhead, but 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?

3.10. 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?

What’s next?

The intention is to find broad alignment using the co-creation cycle process and eventually ratify the Mission, Vision, Values through the passing of the House of Stake constitution.

The MVV are the foundation for building a legitimate governance system. They anchor the work ahead (structures, roles, processes) so NEAR can fund real builders and programs in ways that are traceable to shared outcomes. Aligning on MVV is a first step towards enabling effective collective decision-making and resource allocation.

How and when to give feedback

The feedback period for this cocreation cycle 1 runs for 12 days, from Friday, October 3rd until end of day UTC on Tuesday, October 14th.

The easiest way to give feedback is as a comment on this post. We will endeavour to respond to any direct questions posted in comments below within 48 hours.

After the feedback window has ended, we will consolidate all feedback to draft a v0.2, which will be shared on the Forum no later than Tuesday, October 22nd, along with an explanation for how each point of feedback has been considered and addressed.

Questions to think about to give thoughtful feedback

  1. Do you directionally agree with the proposed MVV? (please use the poll below to indicate your overall sentiment)
  2. Which specific statements do you personally feel most drawn towards and excited by?
  3. Do you have a strong opinion about anything that definitely needs to be in (or not in)? (please explain why)
  4. Is anything important missing? (feel free to propose your own alternative options)
  5. Who else should we engage with to take their perspective into consideration?

Poll

How aligned do you feel with the proposed Vision, Attributes, Mission & Principles?

  • 5 - Strongly aligned - it’s good to go!
  • 4 - Quite aligned - roughly in the right direction
  • 3 - Neutral/mixed - some good, some bad
  • 2 - Not quite aligned - a little bit off
  • 1 - Not at all aligned - it’s completely the wrong direction!
0 voters

If you like bits of it, and don’t like other bits, please share a comments to explain.

Being aligned on our Vision, Attributes, Mission and Principles is the start of this journey—let’s begin!

— @dancunningham & @KlausBrave - @hackhumanity

Addendum: Drafting Methodology

Expand to read details of the methodology

1. Methodology

  • Pre-work & Research: Reviewed NEAR’s past Mission/Vision/Values (2019–2024); analyzed NDC failures (fragmentation, capture, low legitimacy); BlockScience TOM, Microsoft hybrid models.

  • Workshops & Divergent Thinking: Two delegate workshops (June 17–18, 2025) facilitated by Klaus Brave (Miro board). Exercises: Hopes & Fears, stakeholder mapping (Who/Why/How/What), “future headlines.” Additional async inputs (chat, Miro, forum drafts, AI synthesis).

  • Convergence & Synthesis: AI-assisted synthesis (GPT-5, Gemini) from notes, transcripts, historical docs; tested drafts against NEAR history, legitimacy needs, and HoS mandate (see linked sources below).

  • Ratification Plan: Next steps - Problem Discovery (missing voices), Solution Discovery (refine proposal), Iteration & Ratification (gauge approval).

Condensed Inputs Used for AI Synthesis
The draft MVV were built on a wide range of inputs to ensure traceability and legitimacy:

  • AI Synthesized Key Failures of NDC – systemic failures (fragmented moderation, lack of incentives, governance capture) created a low-trust environment.

  • Audio Transcriptions & Chat Logs from Mission/Vision/Values Workshops (June 17–18, 2025) – captured delegate collaboration via Miro boards and shared resources.

  • Klaus’s Pre-Work for HoS Mission/Vision/Values Project – outlined objectives, phases, and emphasized legitimacy through broad input.

  • NEAR Forum Topics (HoS & Archived NDC) – showcased ongoing House of Stake discussions and historical governance context.

  • NEAR Mission, Vision, and Values: 2019–2024 Evolution – traced historical shifts and connected to Gauntlet’s proposed MVV.

  • NEAR Technical Discussions on Agora Alpha – revealed ongoing technical challenges around contracts and implementation.

These diverse sources grounded the VAMP draft in both historical context and current ecosystem needs, ensuring synthesis was not abstract but tied to community realities.

2. Workshop Stakeholders & Participants

  • Facilitators/Organizers: Klaus Brave (Hack Humanity), Lane Rettig (NEAR/HoS).

  • Contributors/Delegates: Charles G, Fin., Peter H, Charlie B, James W, Yuen, Evgeny Haenko, “Slime”, Mr. Potato, Shoji.

  • Stakeholder Groups Represented: House of Stake Delegates, NEAR Foundation; researchers & governance orgs (Agora, Gauntlet, Hack Humanity), community squad.

3. Insights from the Work

  • Hopes: legitimacy, strong community, economic growth, governance breakthrough, user-owned AI.

  • Fears: voter apathy, capture, corruption, bureaucracy, “NDC repeat.”

  • We Will: fund real builders, act with integrity, collaborate inclusively, experiment, be data-driven.

  • We Will Not: play politics, collude, waste time, overbuild/underdeliver, incentivize grifters.

  • Headline Futures (2026): “HoS Treasury hits $100M,” “Community-owned AI governance,” “NYT interviews NEAR on decentralized AI government.”

7 Likes
2

First, as a part of Hack Humanity team - you might say I’m a bit biased in my comment!

I was appreciative of my introduction to the NEAR ecosystem during this process which admittedly, took longer than expected. The technology and the teams building behind the scenes are exceptional.

Finding the true “north star” for House of Stake required a lot of listening. Listening to past calls, workshops Hack Humanity hosted, and forum posts from the last half a decade. Additionally, a critical realignment came out of the Lisbon offsite (I did not attend) as mentioned by Lane in his recent transition post. This gave us much needed clarity on the separation of roles between NEAR Foundation and NEAR House of Stake. It provided necessary context and alignment needed to deliver a quality product here.

One thing I saw over an over from different stakeholder groups: There is strong desire to build better governance that maintains political decentralization, and does not make the same mistakes that charaterize community sentiment after the NDC experiment.

I’d encourage anyone to read through this MVV - especially the Principles, and see if the intentions expressed are aligned:

If YES - Clearly it is beneficial to converse with the assumption that we are looking at the same top of the pyramid, but from different sides. Give constructive feedback to be synthesized into this founding document.

If NO - Even if you do assume malicious intent, your feedback can be framed in a productive way. Given there is no way at this time to prove intent, try clearly articulating your feedback like this:

1. Context & Intent Opener

State your relationship to NEAR and why you are participating in giving feedback

Prompts:

  • What type of stakeholder are you (validator/community/early team/etc.)?
  • What outcome do you hope to see from this discussion?

2. List of Issues

Number each issue and include:

  • ISSUE - Highlight (copy/paste) the specific sentence or paragraph in question.
  • RISK - Be specific about what problems it may cause.
    • Describe effects — on trust, participation, fairness, or efficiency.
    • Avoid speculating potential outcomes without examples to compare.
  • ALTERNATIVE - Offer suggestions for improvement or replacement.
    • Cosider framing suggestions as “How might we…” questions to encourage collaboration.

After all of your Issues have been listed with Risks, and Alternatives, its time for a closing note.

3. Closing Note

Consider Tone & Reflection*: Reaffirm goodwill and shared purpose.*

Examples:

“I’m raising this in the spirit of improving our collective process.”
“I trust everyone’s shared intent to make governance more transparent.”

Using this template can help us to better communicate critisisms in a constructive way.

5 Likes
3

After carefully reviewing the VAMP draft, it’s clear that the concept of community — the living foundation of NEAR governance — is almost entirely missing. The document speaks in abstract terms about “owners,” “users,” and “stakeholders,” yet never truly acknowledges the community as a central and independent force behind NEAR’s decentralized model. What we see instead is a framework designed around principles and values that could, in theory, apply to any organization, without any clear reflection of how the NEAR community participates, co-creates, and holds this structure accountable.

The vision statement, “Decentralised governance for humanity-enhancing AI,” doesn’t include the community as either an actor or a beneficiary. Even though earlier alternatives like “Community-owned, humanity-enhancing AI for all” were proposed, they were excluded from the final version — effectively removing the very group that made NEAR possible. The mission follows the same pattern: by replacing “community” with “owners and users,” it weakens the collective identity that has historically driven NEAR’s growth. A mission that omits the community cannot represent a truly decentralized vision.

The same issue appears in the attributes section, where the chosen descriptors — “Decentralized & Sustainable,” “Autonomous & Aligned,” “Organized & Legitimate” — make no mention of people, contributors, or local hubs that form NEAR’s real social layer. Without community, decentralization is reduced to a structural claim rather than a lived experience. Even the most relevant part, the principle of “Inclusive & Meaningful Participation,” uses the generic term “stakeholders,” which in practice could mean anything from validators to foundation-appointed delegates. There is no tangible pathway for community members to propose, participate, or influence key decisions. The absence of specific mechanisms for community inclusion — such as transparent feedback loops, elections, or open working groups — leaves this principle without substance.

In its current form, the VAMP reads more like a governance blueprint written about the community rather than with it. There is no recognition of the real people who built NEAR’s ecosystems, who organize, translate, educate, and create value on a daily basis. A framework for governance that claims to be decentralized cannot ignore the collective that embodies decentralization itself. If the House of Stake intends to represent the will of NEAR holders and contributors, the word “community” must not be symbolic — it must be operational, embedded in every layer of governance, from vision to principles to process.

A community-driven revision of VAMP should explicitly describe how the NEAR community co-owns, co-creates, and co-governs the system. It should commit to building participation infrastructure — transparent feedback channels, accessible decision paths, and consistent accountability reporting. Only by restoring the community to the center of its mission can the House of Stake claim legitimacy and move beyond the perception that it is another top-down initiative detached from the ecosystem it claims to serve.

1 Like
4

Power to the people!

2 Likes
5

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback, we will take this on board in drafting v0.2 and welcome specific suggestions like these from everyone in the community.

The intention is very much to place community at the heart, and this co-creation cycle is all about continuing to iterate on this document with community.

It would be great to hear from you or others any more specific suggestions for how we can make this reflect the centrality of community and its values.

These could be specific proposed alternatives to any of the numbered statements in the post above, or proposals to add to what’s already there.

If any of the proposed alternatives have greater support, we are by no means wedded to the principle option or limited to only the alternative options already presented here.

To start making community operational and give everyone a voice in the co-creation of our Mission, Vision and Values, as well as the ongoing open invitation for feedback and suggestions here on the Forum (allowing maximum inclusivity to all community members), we will run a Community Co-creation Workshop to further develop the statements and make sure this is reflective and representative of the will of the community.

I will share an invite to that workshop this week, probably for Monday 13 October, early evening UTC to be within the cycle 1 feedback window.

–@dancunningham

4 Likes
6

We had several points of feedback on the Attributes section.

For reference, the proposed Attributes were:

Decentralized & Sustainable

  • We are a politically decentralized organization that rigorously prioritizes sustainable operating through economic, social and technical governance, avoiding wasteful decentralization that can occur when such rigour is lacking.

Autonomous & Aligned

  • We are goal-driven and focused, allowing community members (and AI agents) to be empowered with agency to achieve agreed-upon measurable outcomes rather than inefficiently seeking consensus at all levels.

Organized & Legitimate

  • We use pragmatically-adapting systems to organize across a diverse and representative group of stakeholders through openness and transparency rather than gatekeeping and rigid structures.

It was pointed out that these three descriptors were somewhat generic, lacking in useful specificity and not as meaningful as other parts of the proposal.

We have therefore updated the text to v0.1.1 (still in co-creation cycle 1) to remove the Attributes section, allowing us to revert the name of this document to the more commonly recognised and originally intended “Mission, Vision, Values” headings. Statement numbering has been updated accordingly.

We believe that what was in the Attributes section is covered more meaningfully and specifically by what is now in the Values section, though we may wish to further elaborate on some of these to capture anything that’s now under-weighted.

Always open to further suggestions!

–@dancunningham

3 Likes
7

I believe the intention of the Mission, Vision, and Values is to set the directional aspiration (Vision), how we intend to get there (mission), and guidelines or boundaries for testing alignment to principles (values).

”Specific mechanisms for community inclusion…” is the domain of the constitution, policy, and charters. These will all be going through cocreation as well.

2 Likes
8

Thank you for opening this discussion and for inviting community input — that’s exactly what real decentralization should look like.

If the mission of the House of Stake is to build a decentralized governance system beyond NF control, then community must stand at its very core — not as a symbolic value, but as the living force of NEAR. Our strength has always come from people: organizers, builders, educators, and contributors who shaped NEAR’s history and identity long before any governance existed.

The Vision should clearly state that governance is created with and by the community, while the Values should reflect our collective story — one of collaboration, resilience, and diversity. Without this human layer, decentralization becomes just another structure, not a shared experience.

House of Stake can become a true embodiment of community power — but only if the MVV explicitly recognizes that the heart of decentralization is people, not foundations.

2 Likes
9

We’ve locked in the time for this and you’re all invited :slight_smile:

We’re gathering the House of Stake community to review and refine v0.1 of our key policy documents now in Co-Creation Cycle 1 (HoS Constitution, Mission/Vision/Values, Code of Conduct).

It’s this coming Monday, October 13th at 21:00 UTC (a bit over 24 hours before the feedback window for Cycle 1 closes).

The workshop is your chance to:

  • Share your thoughts on what’s working (and what’s not)
  • Explore and understand one another’s varied perspectives
  • Collaborate on improvements that take us toward an even better v0.2 of each

Your input will help build policies we can all stand behind — rooted in collaboration, transparency, and shared purpose of our community.

Full details and the Zoom link to join the event are in the calendar invite here:

Calendar Event (updated)

And in case you need it, the details for joining the Zoom meeting are:

P.S. We appreciate the notice is quite short—if you can’t join this time, please do share your feedback via a comment here on the Forum.

We will be hosting similar workshops in each co-creation cycle and will rotate around time zones for maximum inclusivity across the global community.

3 Likes
10

Numbering should be 2.2=2.1.1, 2.3=2.1.2, 2.4=2.1.3 etc?

11

Not necessary. This could change and/evolve into a hybrid voting power distribution mechanism.

2 Likes
12

This feels like a more direct and easy to understand.

13

I agree with the proposed MVV. This strives for a balance between decentralization, experimentation, and accountability.

I’m most drawn to Adaptive Governance, Autonomy with Accountability, and Transparency with Dignity. Adaptive governance stands out because it implies continuous learning systems, governance that evolves through feedback loops. Autonomy with accountability captures the right friction between freedom and measurable outcomes, though it’d be good to clarify who sets and reviews those metrics (e.g., rotating councils, elected stewards, or automated review cycles). Transparency with dignity is key for treasury and funding visibility, public data around decisions can help build legitimacy and collective intelligence.

One thing that feels missing is a data-driven governance layer, a way for the DAO to capture and analyze its own decision history. Building that kind of institutional memory could greatly improve both legitimacy and decision quality over time. I’d also emphasize making feedback and outcome tracking more explicit, governance needs feedback and iteration to stay effective. Maybe also ease up on “fully embracing AI” to “AI-augmented” to align with the human-governed tone. Lastly, engaging validators,delegates, builders, and governance researchers from other ecosystems could strengthen the next iteration.

4 Likes
14

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback @Othman.

A DAO Data Strategy is very much needed imo.

There is a need for structure, process, tooling for data as the infrastructure to enable voters to have the context they need, to be data-informed, for human’s + AI to work together with decision-support systems and tools for data-driven decision making.

You mention institutional memory and you have an approach in a few of your posts, can you supply further reading on this matter? I’m curious to learn more.

1 Like
15

The Governance Memory System (GMS) is a decentralized form of a Decision Support System (DSS) purpose-built for validator-governed protocols and DAOs. Where a traditional DSS optimizes decision efficiency, the GMS optimizes decision alignment, legitimacy, and adaptability.

Most DAOs store governance data votes, proposals, and forum posts but very few turn that data into memory. Institutional memory is about structuring that information so future contributors can learn from past decisions rather than start from scratch each cycle.

The framework I’ve been developing, called the Governance Memory System (GMS), treats governance as a living feedback process instead of a series of isolated votes. It’s built around five layers:

  1. Proposal Lifecycle Metadata (PLM) — captures authorship, rationale, and proposal evolution so decisions are traceable and comparable.

  2. Outcome Review Anchors (ORA) — structured checkpoints (e.g. 3, 6, 9 months or milestone triggers) to assess whether a proposal achieved its intent.

  3. Informal Power Mapping (IPM) — surfaces influence dynamics that shape outcomes beyond token-weighted votes.

  4. Governance Health Index (GHI) — diagnostic framework measuring inclusiveness, transparency, feedback, coordination, and accountability. (metagovernance)

  5. Recurring Themes & Frictions (RTF) — synthesizes repeated governance pain points to prevent the same issues from resurfacing.

Together, these layers form a data-driven feedback loop that allows governance to adapt, learn, and evolve over time. The goal isn’t to automate decision-making but to make it traceable, reflective, and self-correcting enabling humans and AI to collaborate through structured institutional learning.

This framework is from a research paper I wrote, currently under review with the Cryptoeconomic Systems journal, which applies it across multiple DAO case studies. Once it’s publicly available, I can share the full paper.

While the full paper is still under review, I’m also exploring ways to pilot a lightweight version of this system within live governance environments and NEAR could be an ideal fit given its emphasis on adaptive governance.

1 Like
16

This sounds great @Othman. What is the timeline / ETA for publishing the paper?

17

Friendlier, gives a feeling of belonging.

18

What types of vote counting systems does the system cater to? Simple Majority, Instant run off, approved voting etc.

19

It’s designed to integrate with any voting mechanism (simple majority, approval, ranked choice, stake-weighted, etc.) because its purpose isn’t to determine how votes are counted, but to ensure that whatever system is used produces traceable, evaluable, and learnable outcomes.

20

Timing is partly out of my hands, I’d estimate anywhere between late Q4 and early Q1 for journal feedback or acceptance.

In the meantime, I’m continuing to refine the practical layer of the framework by tracking proposal outcomes, feedback loops, and overall governance health. Once new proposals start flowing through the system, I plan to start monitoring them and may put forward a proposal of my own to explore support (tooling or financial) for expanding the effort.

1 Like