Proposal Template for the HoS Foundation (Version 1.0)

[UhthredB]

Version Info

• This submission is the second iteration- please find the original post here.

• This is my final submission to the House Of Stake PM sprint to “create a custom proposal template for HoS”

---

I’m a huge fan of the series SEAL Team. The story is an intimate journey through the world as seen through the eyes of DEVGRU teams. It portrays the lives of some of the world’s most elite warfighters, and each episode displays their intensity and precision in chaotic, unforgiving terrains. One can’t help but notice the sophisticated research that powers its narrative. After one especially gripping “kill/capture HVT” episode, I was hooked. I had to learn how these operations came to life, who orchestrated them, how they were planned, and what prevented them from failing.

For a DEVGRU team to even board a helicopter, the mission must clear at least seven planning passes across five specialized hierarchical team echelons. No mission with a cohort of fewer than 30 people makes it off the drawing board. Not a single detail is left to chance; synchronized precision is standard. I realized, successfully executing high-stakes operations is vastly more daunting (even on paper) than TV implies. This realization led to my next question:

"Could I plan such an operation—using their methods—and feel confident it might succeed?

Operations Orders (OpOrds)

How do we plan and execute a specific mission with radical clarity and minimal failure?

This research problem dates back to the early 1800s when, after defeats by Napoleon, the Prussian Army pioneered the first systematic command structures and milestone-driven battlefield orders. Major Eben Swift of the U.S. Army later standardized the “field order” into the familiar five-paragraph format (Situation, Mission, Execution, Administration/Logistics, and Command/Signal). This OPORD template survived the World Wars and, through continuous adaptation, became the underpinning of today’s special operations mission planning documents, including for DEVGRU units (for reference, see STANAG 2014, USMC).

At their heart, all these documents answer five simple questions: Situation, Mission, Execution, Sustainment, and Command & Signal.

High Reliability Organizations (HROs)

If the U.S. military has perfectly deconstructed a planning template that maximizes mission success for sophisticated, high-stakes outcomes, why aren’t more organizations using it?

From nuclear power plants and air traffic control centers to wildfire response agencies and hospital emergency teams, many High Reliability Organizations (HROs) use templates in one way or another to reflect the OpOrds framework. In these ultra-high-functioning environments, such documents help organizations:

1. Stay alert to failure,
2. Honor complexity,
3. Remain sensitive to operations,
4. Defer to expert judgment, and
5. Build resilience

The success of these frameworks in high-stakes environments naturally raises the question:

“Could we adapt these proven methodologies for strategic work in complex, multi-stakeholder settings like the House Of Stake?”

The Facilitator’s Catechism

Building on this foundation, I began searching for accessible OpOrds-inspired templates tailored for project management in non-military contexts. The Heilmeier Catechism—an eight-question funding evaluation tool from DARPA (instituted 1977)—stood out as a bridge between military precision and civilian innovation. Developed from this foundation is the “Facilitator’s Catechism (FC)”—a modular operations order designed specifically for distributed, non-hierarchical contexts like those we envision for the NEAR House of Stake. Unlike traditional, prescriptive OpOrds, the FC uses guiding questions (a catechism format) to foster clarity and alignment for distributed teams operating in complex governance environments.

Just as DEVGRU requires extraordinary coordination across multiple specialized teams to execute successful missions, the NEAR Protocol’s House of Stake governance framework demands similar precision in coordinating diverse stakeholders, delegates, and community members. The veNEAR token system, Screening Committees, and Endorsed Delegates all require clear operational frameworks to function effectively. By adapting these battle-tested planning methodologies from special operations to decentralized governance, we can bring the same level of operational excellence that enables elite military units to succeed in complex, high-stakes environments to the coordination challenges facing modern DAOs and blockchain governance systems.

Components- Proposal template

1. Proposal Id

• Establishes unambiguous project identity, accountability, and timeline upfront.
• Facilitates rapid discovery and stakeholder contact for proposal review and collaboration.

Proposal Call Sign	[Title]
Type	[Proposal Category]
Proposer	[Author] [Forum User ID]
Facilitator(s)	[Multiple] / [Service Provider]/ [PM Name]
Communication Channels	[Facilitator Telegram ID]
Date Of Voting	[Agora date]
Date of Completion	[by this date]/ [one-year program]/ [when complete]

2. Situation

• Sets the context by defining the underlying challenge or opportunity motivating the proposal.
• Highlights any novel aspects or limitations of traditional solutions, clarifying urgency and stakes.

Q1:	What is the nature of the situation or problem the team is being formed to address?
Q2:	Are there known causes driving this need or problem?
Q3:	Is this situation novel?
Q4:	What are the limitations of existing approaches?
Q5:	What are the consequences if the situation is not addressed?

3. Mission

• Articulates the explicit and measurable objectives the House of Stake aims to achieve via the proposal.
• Provides a touchstone for evaluating progress and success, independent of team composition shifts.

Objectives:	Given the situation, what are the explicit objectives of this proposal/project?
Outcomes:	State the outcome(s) you aim to achieve.

4. Avenue Of Approach

• Identifies and evaluates strategies or pathways for achieving stated objectives.
• Encourages rigorous consideration of required resources, risks, and limitations (so plans are actionable)

Q1:	What are the potential approaches to achieving the mission?
Q2:	For each approach:

i. What tools, techniques, or expertise are required?
ii. What are the risks?
iii. What are the limitations?|

5. Milestones

• Defines key progress indicators and checkpoints to track mission advancement and maintain accountability.
• Milestones provide iterative opportunities for reassessment, learning, and course correction.

Q1:	What are the milestones that would best indicate mission progress?
Q2:	How do the milestones relate to each chosen approach?

6. Implications of Outcome

• Clarifies the value and long-term impact of proposal success for the House of Stake and stakeholders.
• Grounds the proposal in broader significance, motivating engagement and strategic alignment.

Q1:	If successful, what is the meaning and impact for the stakeholders, House of Stake, and the situation?
Q2:	What secondary or extended effects might result?
Q3:	What future work or follow-ups will be enabled?

7. Administration, Logistics, and Communications

• Specifies all operational details, requirements, and resources essential for proposal execution.
• Ensures clarity in group structure, communication, resource use, and closure procedures, supporting transparency and adaptability.

Budget	What is the requested cost in $NEAR?
Cadence	What is the frequency of such payments? [Is it a single transfer/ in tranches]
Source	Where is the money coming from?
Reporting	How will these resources be reported ?(for eg: monthly reports)

Team	Who is responsible for completion?
Accountability	Who is the team accountable to?
Platforms	Where and how will the work occur?
Participation	What are the requirements for participation?
Communication	How will the group communicate?
Wind up	Under what conditions will the project conclude or the group disband?

8. Timelines

Explicit timelines for better planning, coordination, and scheduling operations

Q1:	What happens next in the governance process?
Q2:	When will the decision/ announcement be made? (Date of Agora Vote)

---

Sample proposal

“Prepare a sample proposal, structured in the Facilitator’s Catechism(FC) format, advocating for the adoption of the FC template as the standard proposal framework for the House of Stake”

Proposal Call Sign	Adoption of the Facilitator’s Catechism as the Default Proposal Format for House of Stake [FC-Default-Format-2025]
Type	Governance Framework Proposal
Proposer	Uhthred
Facilitator(s)	Uhthred, House of Stake Governance Team
Communication Channels	Telegram: Contact @Uhthred_B
Date Of Voting	to be announced
Date of Completion	upon ratification; living document

---

2. Situation

Currently, proposals in the House of Stake vary significantly in structure, clarity, and completeness. This inconsistency:

• Slows governance reviews.
• Increases subjective decision-making.
• Reduces accountability.

Key contributing factors include:

• No single, enforced proposal template.
• Varying levels of proposer familiarity with governance requirements.

Existing ad hoc approaches:

• Are hard to compare side-by-side.
• Frequently omit critical details.

Risk if unaddressed: Misaligned proposals, wasted resources, and possible erosion of community trust.

---

3. Mission

Primary Objective: Adopt the Facilitator’s Catechism (FC) as the default and mandatory format for all House of Stake proposals.

Intended Outcomes:

• Standardized structure across all proposals starting [effective date].
• Reduced review cycle time.
• Measurable increase in proposal clarity and post-approval accountability.

---

4. Avenue of Approach

Possible adoption strategies:

• Full Immediate Adoption: All proposals must comply in the next cycle.
• Phased Rollout: Recommended for one quarter, then mandatory.
• Hybrid: Required for treasury or strategic proposals; optional for others.

Implementation tools/resources:

• Editable FC template.
• Example proposals for guidance.
• Orientation sessions (live or recorded).

Risks:

• Resistance from proposers accustomed to freeform submissions.
• The initial learning curve reduces submission speed.

Mitigation: Early communication, thorough onboarding, and active support.

---

5. Milestones

Finalize FC template and publish with examples	11/08/2025
Governance ratification vote	to be announced
First proposal cycle using FC format	to be announced
Post-cycle review and community feedback session	to be announced

---

6. Implications of Outcomes

If adopted:

• Proposals become easier to review and compare.
• Faster governance turnaround.
• Improved transparency and archival value.

Secondary Benefits:

• Easier onboarding for new proposers.
• Potential integration with automated review tools.

Future Potential:

• Iterative improvements to the FC format.
• Creation of specialized versions for thematic proposal categories.

---

7. Administration, Logistics, and Communications

1. Budget: Undiscussed
2. Source: Undiscussed/ House of Stake governance budget.
3. Cadence: Undiscussed/ One-time template adoption; ongoing use.
4. Reporting: The first post-cycle review will evaluate proposal quality and decision efficiency.
5. Team: Facilitator + Community + Governance Team.
6. Accountability: Governance Team reports adoption/compliance metrics to the council.
7. Platforms: Template hosted in the House of Stake knowledge base and linked in the submission portal.
8. Participation: Mandatory for all proposers post-adoption.
9. Communication: Forum announcements, guidebook, and live/on-demand onboarding calls.
10. Wind-up: Standard format will persist unless amended by governance vote.

---

8. Timeline

Forum discussion and Q&A — [Start Date]	11/08/2025
Formal Agora submission — [Date].	to be announced
Governance vote — [Target date, e.g., 15 Sept 2025].	to be announced
Post-cycle review and community feedback session	to be announced
Announcement	48 hours post-vote.
FC template made available for immediate use from the adoption date.

---

[lane]

Thanks for this template proposal.

I’m in the process of drafting a few early proposals, and I’m looking for a template that’s as simple as it can possibly be. I’ve taken the work you did here, and merged it with a few other things such as the EIP process from Ethereum. Here’s what I’ve arrived at - feedback and suggestions very welcome. We should aim to get a template spec up onto the GitHub - houseofstake/proposals: Official repository for House of Stake proposals repository within a couple of days, as a starting point, and iterate from there.

---
hsp: <to be assigned>
title: <Proposal title>
description: <Brief description>
author: <Name (@github or forum handle)>
discussions-to: <Forum URL>
status: Draft
type: <Decision/Sensing/Constitutional>
category: <Economic Governance/Technical Governance/Treasury Management/Other>
created: <YYYY-MM-DD>
---

## Abstract
2-3 sentence summary of what this proposal does.

## Situation
- What problem are we solving?
- What happens if we don't address it?

## Mission
**Objectives:** What will this proposal achieve?

**Outcomes:** What measurable results do we expect?

## Approach
What strategy will we use? What are the risks and limitations?

## Technical Specification
Detailed description of what will be implemented or changed. Include specific parameters, processes, or systems affected.

## Backwards Compatibility
Does this proposal introduce any backwards incompatibilities? If so, how will they be addressed? If not, state "No backwards compatibility issues."

## Milestones
| Milestone | Target Date | Deliverable |
|-----------|-------------|-------------|

## Budget & Resources
| Item | Amount | Notes |
|------|--------|-------|
| **Total** | X NEAR | |

**Source:** Treasury/Inflation/Other
**Reporting:** How will progress be reported?

## Team & Accountability
- **Responsible:** 
- **Accountable to:**

## Security Considerations
What are the security implications of this proposal?

## Copyright
Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).

[Othman]

@lane

hsp: <to be assigned>
title: <Proposal title>
description: <Brief description>
author: <Name (@github or forum handle)>
discussions-to: <Forum URL>
status: Draft
type: <Decision/Sensing/Constitutional>
category: <Economic Governance/Technical Governance/Treasury Management/Other>
created: <YYYY-MM-DD>
---

## Abstract
2-3 sentence summary of what this proposal does.

## Situation
- What problem are we solving?
- What happens if we don't address it?

## Mission
**Objectives:** What will this proposal achieve?

**Outcomes:** What measurable results do we expect?

## Approach
What strategy will we use? What are the risks and limitations?

## Technical Specification
Detailed description of what will be implemented or changed. Include specific parameters, processes, or systems affected.

## Backwards Compatibility
Does this proposal introduce any backwards incompatibilities? If so, how will they be addressed? If not, state "No backwards compatibility issues."

## Milestones
| Milestone | Target Date | Deliverable |
|-----------|-------------|-------------|

## Budget & Resources
| Item | Amount | Notes |
|------|--------|-------|
| **Total** | X NEAR | |

**Source:** Treasury/Inflation/Other
**Reporting:** How will progress be reported?

## Team & Accountability
- **Responsible:** 
- **Accountable to:**

## Security Considerations
What are the security implications of this proposal?

## Copyright
Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).

In the Team and Accountability section or the Milestones section we can also have

The reporting section can include:

• Reporting Channel: Where will updates be published (GitHub, Forum, Dashboard)?

• Update Frequency: How often will reports or check-ins occur?

In addition to the outcomes section or Milestones section I suggest we add outcome anchors a concept apart of the Governance Memory System I’ve been mentioning. An outcome anchor can be triggered by a milestone or time based.

Outcome Anchors & Feedback Loops

• Short-Term Feedback (0–30 days): What signals or metrics will we watch post-implementation?
• Medium-Term Review (30–90 days): What evaluation checkpoint ensures alignment with objectives?
• Long-Term Review (>90 days): How do we measure sustained impact or failure modes?

I think you can also add a Stakeholder section. It also lets proposers proactively identify who should review or co-sign before voting, preventing governance bottlenecks later. This also actively shapes the “community” definition + fosters inclusivity throughout the process.

Something like this for example:

Stakeholders

| Group | Role/Interest | Impact (Low/Med/High) | Notes |

Lastly, somewhere before or after situation include

Governance Context

• Precedent: Which previous proposals or community discussions relate to this?

• Dependencies: Does this rely on or modify existing rules, working groups, or budgets? (could maybe be looped in backward compatibility section)

• Constitutional Alignment: Which principles of the HoS Constitution or NEAR values does this uphold?

  I’ve added these because what I have in mind for the Governance Memory System is to collect the proposal metadata and eventually form an institutional memory system where anyone can jump in and get clear context of the governance history and path of HoS. This allows new and current members of the community to better understand the ecosystem. Of course feel free to disagree if you feel these additions/comments are not aligned but I believe the more robust the proposals are, the less potential spam and unserious proposers we may receive.

[UhthredB]

@lane

discussions-to: <Forum URL>

As the proposal begins its lifecycle on the forum, adding a self-referential link on the same post might be confusing to the reader.

@lane

**Reporting:** How will progress be reported?

• maybe add “and how often?”

Attached is feedback from @paulofonseca

I do agree with his feedback - it would indeed be a cool mechanism to introduce a compulsory CoI section - but instead of asking for disclosures, perhaps add a section for the proposer to check a statement like " I have read and agree to the HoS DAO’s Conflict Of Interest Policy and do hereby declare that I have disclosed all relevant conflict I might have as the author of this proposal"

These are my suggestions - thank you for your time and attention. This should be good to go imo

[UhthredB]

@Othman

Governance Memory System I’ve been mentioning.

Could you please share a link ?

[UhthredB]

@Othman

I think you can also add a Stakeholder section. It also lets proposers proactively identify who should review or co-sign before voting, preventing governance bottlenecks later. This also actively shapes the “community” definition + fosters inclusivity throughout the process.

proposers already know the screening committee members, the delegates, and the members of the security council. These are the stakeholders when it comes to an HoS proposal.

Also if by stakeholders you meant the co-facilitators of the proposal - they should clearly be stated out under the ‘team’ section. All partners, service providers or personnel that would be touched by the proposal should all be there.

[UhthredB]

@Othman

• Precedent: Which previous proposals or community discussions relate to this?
• Dependencies: Does this rely on or modify existing rules, working groups, or budgets? (could maybe be looped in backward compatibility section)

This would mean that a proposer would need to go through all previous proposals and list out similarities and differences - it sounds easy in the beginning but Arbitrum DAO had more than 400 proposals( including offchain proposals) at the end of year 1. At that point - this would be a humungous ask from the proposers.

[lane]

See also Proposal: HSP-001

HSP-001 includes a draft template, which will be installed into the proposals repository in this PR: Create HSP-001.md by lrettig · Pull Request #2 · houseofstake/proposals · GitHub

[Othman]

House of Stake Mandate

Thanks for publishing this mandate in a standalone topic. I think the clarity here is a big step forward. Narrowing scope makes sense, especially if the goal is to rack up early wins and build legitimacy. One thing I’d like to surface, drawing from my experience with governance processes in other ecosystems (Jito on Solana, for example), is the importance of governance memory and outcome tracking. Right now, you’ve set ambitious goals around economic governance and technical governance. But bo…

Here’s where I first mentioned it.

Transition plan to more decentralized governance

Thanks for raising these concerns, @Dacha I appreciate the passion and scrutiny; we need voices like yours in the mix. I come from a background where the minority voice was the decentralization maximalists and I used to work for a medium sized validator that would advocate for other smaller validators in ecosystems that usually catered to larger validators and institutions. These stakeholders tend to get overlooked so I understand your concern. Let me clarify a few points, and also suggest how …

Here’s where I last mentioned it.

[Othman]

Good call-out on the distinction, I was referring to co-facilitators. I agree with your framing of what the ‘team’ section should include. Documenting these connections could also help surface soft influence patterns across the ecosystem and strengthen accountability through transparent track records.

[Othman]

@UhthredB

This would mean that a proposer would need to go through all previous proposals and list out similarities and differences - it sounds easy in the beginning but Arbitrum DAO had more than 400 proposals( including offchain proposals) at the end of year 1. At that point - this would be a humungous ask from the proposers.

Not quite, this is more about proposals that build on prior ones, not requiring proposers to review all historical proposals. For example, if there’s a multipart initiative, instead of packaging everything into a single giant proposal, proposers can break it into stages and reference earlier parts to provide continuity. Similarly, if a proposal aims to fix an issue introduced by a previous change say, in consensus parameters, emission schedules, or client upgrades referencing that prior context helps reviewers understand dependencies and intent without reinventing the wheel each time. This makes it easier for newcomers to participate in governance if they were not present from the start. This kind of continuity tracking also supports institutional memory within the DAO and improves the overall quality of governance over time.

[lane]

@UhthredB

As the proposal begins its lifecycle on the forum, adding a self-referential link on the same post might be confusing to the reader.

Agree that this isn’t needed on the forum draft, but it should be included in the final, canonical proposal, it establishes the link back to that forum thread.

@Othman

In the Team and Accountability section or the Milestones section we can also have

The reporting section can include:

• Reporting Channel: Where will updates be published (GitHub, Forum, Dashboard)?
• Update Frequency: How often will reports or check-ins occur?

These have been added.

@Othman

In addition to the outcomes section or Milestones section I suggest we add outcome anchors a concept apart of the Governance Memory System I’ve been mentioning. An outcome anchor can be triggered by a milestone or time based.

Outcome Anchors & Feedback Loops

• Short-Term Feedback (0–30 days): What signals or metrics will we watch post-implementation?
• Medium-Term Review (30–90 days): What evaluation checkpoint ensures alignment with objectives?
• Long-Term Review (>90 days): How do we measure sustained impact or failure modes?

These are interesting, but I don’t think they require their own special section. These can be covered under Milestones or Accountability.

@Othman

Lastly, somewhere before or after situation include

Governance Context

Great suggestion, I added this too.

@UhthredB

perhaps add a section for the proposer to check a statement like " I have read and agree to the HoS DAO’s Conflict Of Interest Policy and do hereby declare that I have disclosed all relevant conflict I might have as the author of this proposal"

Added this to HSP-001.