# The 'ideal proposal template' for House Of Stake

**URL:** <https://gov.near.org/t/the-ideal-proposal-template-for-house-of-stake/41445>\
**Category:** Governance\
**Tags:** proposals\
**Created:** [July 28, 2025, 1:38pm UTC](https://gov.near.org/t/the-ideal-proposal-template-for-house-of-stake/41445 "2025-07-28T13:38:29Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![UhthredB](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/gov.near.org/uhthredb/32/50014_2.png) [@UhthredB](https://gov.near.org/u/UhthredB)\
**Post date:** [July 28, 2025, 1:38pm UTC](https://gov.near.org/t/the-ideal-proposal-template-for-house-of-stake/41445/1 "2025-07-28T13:38:30Z")

</div>

# This is the template shared by Agora

_When making a proposal, please use the text below as a starting place. You may add sections as you see appropriate, but if any of these sections are missing, you will likely receive feedback that you should amend your proposal to include additional information._

### **1.** Proposal Title **(replace this text with the name of your proposal)**

### **2. Point of Contact: [Name, contact info, address]**

_This person should be the main point of contact throughout the proposal process._

### **3. Proposal Type** : \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

_e.g. Technical, grant, etc._

### **4. Executive Summary**

_An overview of the intended goal of the proposal, including a brief summary, impacted stakeholder, and desired outcomes._

### **5. Motivation**

_Why are you submitting this proposal, and how is it beneficial for the ecosystem and community?_

_Please pro-actively volunteer any possible conflicts of interest that you (or any entity you’re affiliated with) may have with respect to the proposal._

### **6. Specifications**

_The details of the proposed changes. Please include, where appropriate:_

- **Technical details**.
  - Links to any tech specifications
  - Any ongoing research or security considerations (e.g. audits)

- **Impact summary / KPIs (a comprehensive description of the intended results of the proposal).**
  - _e.g. For growth-driven projects → what metrics will this affect? What does success look like?_
  - _e.g. For strategic initiatives → what specific goal does this aim to support?_

### **7. Success Criteria**

_What does success look like? In some cases, completion is an acceptable success criteria, but where possible, this should be specific and measurable._

### 8. Action Plan

_How will this proposal be implemented? Where appropriate, please include a suggested timeline, possible risks (& mitigation plan),._

### **9. Conclusion**

_Briefly summarize the key points._

* * *

**Note:** By submitting a proposal, you represent and warrant that the information in the proposal is true and complete to the best of your knowledge.

## **These are a set of suggested enhancements**

These are a set of enhancements to the current Agora proposal template, aimed at improving clarity, traceability, and operational efficiency for all stakeholders. Each recommendation is accompanied by a rationale to justify its inclusion.

## **1. Identifier tag**

**Recommendation:**  
Add a standardized identifier tag section at the top of each proposal, capturing key metadata.

| Initiative Call Sign: | eg: [ARDC V2] |
| --- | --- |
| Proposer: | [Author] [Forum User Id link] |
| Facilitator(s): | [Multiple]/ [Service Provider]/ [PM Name] |
| Communication Channels | [Facilitator Tg Id]/ |
| Date Of Voting: | [Agora date] |
| Date of Completion: | [by this date]/ [one year program]/ [when complete] |

**Reason:**  
Traceability and Accountability – This tag ensures every proposal is uniquely identifiable, aids in tracking progress, and clarifies points of contact for follow-ups.

## **2. Proposal type**

**Recommendation:**  
Introduce a focused category tag for each proposal, with clear options for technical and non-technical types, and sub-categories for ease of indexing and historical analysis.

**Suggestions for categories**

- **Non-Technical**

- **Technical**

**Reason:**  
Ease of Indexing and Data Analysis – Categorization streamlines searching, reporting, and historical review, helping stakeholders quickly locate and analyze similar proposals.

## **3. Summary -**

**Recommendation** :  
Require a concise, parameter-driven summary (4 sentences), optionally referencing standardized summaries from platforms like Tally, Agora or [X23.ai](http://x23.ai/).

| Sentence 1: | Brief overview of the intended goal |
| --- | --- |
| Sentence 2: | Impacted stakeholders |
| Sentence 3: | Desired outcomes |
| Sentense 4: | Key context or rationale |

**Reason** :  
Clarity of Purpose – A structured summary ensures the proposal’s intent and scope are immediately clear, reducing ambiguity for reviewers.

## 4. Timelines:

**Recommendation** :  
Add a dedicated timeline table for key proposal milestones.

| **Lifecycle** | **[Date]** |
| --- | --- |
| Discourse | [Forum posting Date][Link] |
| Onchain Vote | [Date][Outcome] [Links] |

**Reason** :  
Scheduling Operations – Explicit timelines facilitate better planning, coordination, and transparency throughout the proposal lifecycle.

## **5. Conclusion - feedback loop**

**Recommendation** :  
End each proposal with a feedback loop section, providing direct links for further reading, learning, and communication.

| Read up | [Forum Thread] [WG channels] [Links] |
| --- | --- |
| Learn more | [Office Hours] [Calendar Link][Links] |
| Reach out | [Telegram Id] [Links] |

**Reason** :  
Continuous Engagement – This ensures stakeholders can easily access additional resources, participate in discussions, and connect with proposal leads for clarification.

## **Summary of enhancements**

| Section | Recommendation | Reason |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Identifier Tag | Standardized metadata table | Traceability & accountability |
| Proposal Type | Focused category tags | Ease of indexing & data analysis |
| Summary | Parameter-driven 4-sentence summary | Clarity of purpose |
| Timelines | Timeline table for key events | Scheduling operations |
| Conclusion | Feedback loop with resource links | Continuous engagement |

## What makes these suggestions qualified?

These suggestions are derived from studying 180 proposals in the [NDC](https://www.notion.so/Proposal-Analysis-f7f88d5953d945cd89410decf332e439?pvs=21), 450 proposals from the Arbitrum governance [cycle](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-proposals-app-govhack-brussels-winner/25370/28?u=uhthred), and countless proposals in multiple DAO environments. The idea is to start HoS with a better set of templates than what we currently have

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Reza\_Rayman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@Reza\_Rayman](https://gov.near.org/u/Reza_Rayman)\
**Post date:** [September 2, 2025, 6:42pm UTC](https://gov.near.org/t/the-ideal-proposal-template-for-house-of-stake/41445/2 "2025-09-02T18:42:46Z")

</div>

Decisions should be further classified into either material and non-material. Each classification requires its own depth of motivation and voting method. Material decisions require more inspection than non-material decisions. It will be more efficient at scale.