Proposal to Terminate the NEAR Community Purpose Trust by the transfer of all of its assets to the House of Stake Foundation

Near Community and nodes
,
1

The NEAR Community, as that term is defined in the Trust Instrument of the NEAR Community Purpose Trust (“Trust Instrument” and the “Trust”, respectively) – a copy of which can be found here – is invited to vote on the following proposal (the “Vote”), for the purpose of providing “NEAR Consent” (as that term is defined in the Trust Instrument):

What is the NEAR Community being asked to vote on?

The NEAR Community is being invited to vote on the following proposal (the “Proposal”), which is being advanced by the trustees of the Trust (the “Trustees”):

  • the termination of the Trust by the transfer of all of its assets, by the Trustees to the House of Stake Foundation (the “Recipient”);

  • authorising and permitting the Enforcer of the Trust (Francesco Paolo Patti) to sign, as agent of the NEAR Community, any instrument or other document by which the Proposal is implemented and/or recorded, to include the Instrument as defined below. This authorisation and permission relates to clause 27.2(b) of the Trust Instrument and provides that in such circumstances, the signing of the relevant instrument or other document by the Enforcer is, absent bad faith or gross negligence on the part of the Enforcer, conclusive evidence of the provision of NEAR Consent in relation to the exercise of the relevant power;

  • more specifically the NEAR Community is being asked to approve:

    • the exercise, by the Trustees, of their clause 5.2(a) power of appointment (or any other power enabling them to do so within the Trust Instrument) (the “Power to Appoint”) to appoint, pay or apply, the entire trust fund of the Trust to the Recipient, thereby terminating the Trust;

    • the execution by the Trustees of an Instrument of Appointment, Indemnity and Termination (the “Instrument”) by which the Power to Appoint is exercised to appoint the trust fund of the Trust to the Recipient, causing the termination of the Trust;

    • the execution by the Enforcer of the Instrument, as agent for the NEAR Community, as evidence of the provision of NEAR Consent; and

    • the taking of any other actions or steps considered necessary or desirable by the Enforcer and/or the Trustees, to give full effect to the Proposal.

Anticipated Support for the Proposal

It is currently anticipated that the Proposal will be supported by:

  • all of the Trustees;

  • the Enforcer; and

  • the NEAR Foundation, which was the settlor of the Trust and caused it to be established in 2023.

Vote Details

The Vote will take place between Feb 23–Mar 9, 2026 (2 weeks) at https://www.citizenshouse.org/

  • Voting opens on Monday, February 23rd, 2026 at 18:00 UTC

  • Voting closes on Monday, March 9th, 2026 at 18:00 UTC

The outcome of the Vote will be published at https://www.citizenshouse.org/ on Monday, March 9th, 2026 by 23:00 UTC.

If NEAR Consent is provided in respect of the Proposal, implementation is intended to follow as soon as reasonably practicable after the result of the Vote is known.

Question

“Do you, as a member of the NEAR Community, support the implementation of the Proposal by the taking of the actions and steps detailed above under the heading ‘What is the NEAR Community being asked to vote on?’” YES / NO

7 Likes
2

I’m more worried about how things will be run after the termination than how they work. It’s okay to move everything to the House of Stake Foundation as long as the mandate, controls, and accountability are much clearer than they were with the NEAR Community Purpose Trust.

The vote is basically asking the NEAR community to approve a clean handoff and give the enforcer a lot of power to carry it out. That’s fine, but only if there is openness about how the money will be handled after the Trust is gone and how community oversight will continue in practice, not just on paper.

I will probably vote yes, but I want to see clear proof that this doesn’t weaken the NEAR community’s power compared to the current structure, especially since the NEAR Foundation supports it. Governance shortcuts tend to last longer than they should.

2 Likes
3

Famous Russian idiom:

Мужик слово дал An Update on the NDC Funding and Support for Grassroots Projects – NEAR Protocol

Мужик слово забрал :grinning_face:

It probably would have made sense to include an additional option: to allocate all those funds to a community fund (Near Legion, HOT, Meteor, and others), alongside the option to return the money to the Near Foundation (YES) and keep it in trust (No).

1 Like
4

Thankyou for the support for this proposal sir @taylor66 , welcome.

I think it’s a good idea to allocate some fundings through to Near Legions, as I’m a part of it.
Use Nearn.io as the distribution platform to maintain accountability and clear expectations throughout the initiative.

We might impose a certain restriction given the current market is suboptimal, so we can have better Runway through the years. Any efficciency is good.

**I am committed to voting “Yes” for this proposal.
**

1 Like