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 we can incorporate these critical perspectives more explicitly, governance is stronger when skepticism is built in, not pushed out.
1. Who is “community”?
The community is not a mono-category. It includes independent contributors, builders, token holders, DAOs, validators, even those currently supported by NF (so long as they’re acting transparently). I agree the line is blurry, and we must continuously refine it. That’s why feedback from people like you is essential for evolving that definition.
2. Why the phased decentralization approach?
Maximal decentralization from day one carries massive risk: decision paralysis, coordination failure, no accountability, fragmented power. The transition plan is designed to balance forward execution and decentralization. I’ve seen both ends of the spectrum when things start of too decentralized initiatives tend to lose steam (Cosmos blockchain) and there’s no unified vision. When things are too centralized the community sees through it and if the number doesn’t go up people leave (EOS blockchain) . Right now Near needs to focus 1) focus on a unified vision & 2)Make sure the vision is feasible and serves the community members.
That said, the plan must come with guardrails so it doesn’t become “centralization by default forever.” That’s where accountability and oversight come in.
3. On treasury, funds, and authority
@lane Already explained that. All I would add is that there can potentially be another subphase added to phase 3 or 4. We could potentially mimic A Chainsaw Arc similar to AAVE. This should ensue once there’s enough data to back up these cuts and frivolous spending you’re concerned about. I know you’ve mentioned a lot of spending on this initiative with nothing to show for it and I think this can also be assessed in the future. A wise man once told me governance was like a fire extinguisher, no one thinks about it until there’s a fire so try to appreciate the focus on it even if it’s taking a little longer than expected to get right 
I do think with the previous lessons learned and properly documented we can avoid repeating the same mistakes.
4. Accountability, review loops, and governance memory
The gap you’re pointing out of “who watches the watchers” is why I care so much about the Accountability Layer / GMS(Governance memory system concept.)
What I want to propose is that major proposals or decisions made by HoS is accompanied by:
-
explicit, public statements of intended outcomes
-
scheduled review checkpoints (e.g. 30/60/90 days) to see actual vs intended
-
public “scorecards” or dashboards on results
That makes us accountable forward, not just retrospectively. If a delegated authority fails to deliver, the community sees it and can course-correct.
5. Help shape governance design
Your criticism about the screening committee, NF’s role, and process legitimacy is valid. I’d suggest a public working group (with open calls) to help define the screening committee, charters, and checks & balances, ONCE initial documents are ready for feedback.
What often happens in early meta-governance discussions is too many people nitpicking line items before there’s a coherent structure. We’ll all have input, but there needs to be a core drafting phase before the broad review.
One approach could be for HoS to host focused calls for each stakeholder group developers, validators, delegates, investors, and DAOs so everyone feels heard and represented.
I share your concern that HoS should not be “control in NF’s clothes.” That is precisely what I’m trying to guard against with the accountability layer and decentralized transition phases. I hope we can use this moment as a constructive turning point where skepticism forces us to build stronger governance rather than fracturing the path forward.