NEAR House of Stake Conflict of Interest Guide
1. Introduction
This Guide helps you identify, disclose and manage Conflict of Interest, in line with the NEAR House of Stake Conflict of Interest Policy. Use this Guide alongside the Policy, not instead of it.
2. Determining how the Conflict of Interest Policy Applies to you
If you are a Governance Body Member or Endorsed Delegate, you are bound to the Conflict of Interest Policy through a Constitutional Document that refers to it. Refer to that document to determine the particular obligations and enforcement mechanisms that apply to you.
According to the NEAR House of Stake Code of Conduct, disclosing conflicts of interest in line with the Conflict of Interest Policy is expected conduct for all Stakeholders.
3. Identifying a Conflict of Interest
The Core Principle
A Conflict of Interest exists when you stand to gain benefits from a decision that aren't proportionally available to other NEAR Stakeholders. The key word is proportionally: if a decision benefits the whole ecosystem and you benefit as part of it, that's alignment, not conflict.
Making the judgment
When assessing the nature and magnitude of a benefit, you may need to consider multiple factors across multiple benefits. Use the following factors to inform your judgment, not to calculate a score.
Nature of the benefit
Economic benefit (payments, funding, tokens, business value)
Economic benefits are usually the easiest to assess. They include direct payments, appreciation of tokens you hold, and funding or fees for an entity you're connected to. See Token Holdings and Endorsed Delegate Compensation examples.
Professional benefit (appointments, relationships, reputation, access)
Professional benefits are harder to assess than economic ones. They include formal positions such as an advisory role or board seat, whether paid or unpaid. They can also include informal gains such as relationship capital or access, and reputational upside such as being seen as prescient for backing a project. See Unpaid Advisor and Public Endorsement examples.
Personal benefit (relationships with beneficiaries, project alignment)
Personal benefits are the hardest to assess. They can arise from a partner, close colleague or friend who stands to gain – or from deep personal alignment with a project's mission. See Spouse Works for Grantee example.
Magnitude of the benefit
Size relative to your circumstances
A benefit that is large in absolute terms may be genuinely immaterial to someone with a very large stake in the ecosystem. Conversely, a modest absolute benefit can be significant if it represents a meaningful share of your holdings or income. See NFT Holdings example.
Likelihood of receiving the benefit
A benefit may be guaranteed, or contingent on decisions subsequent to the proposal. Low probability reduces magnitude but doesn't eliminate a conflict.
Number of others receiving a similar benefit
A benefit shared by many Stakeholders approaches proportionality. One shared by a small group remains selective. Another relevant question is how open the beneficiary group is to new members. See Endorsed Delegate Compensation example.
Period over which you, and the ecosystem, will benefit
The longer your personal benefit extends relative to ecosystem benefit, the more weight it carries. A recurring personal benefit could be greater than a one-off benefit. A long term benefit to the ecosystem could outweigh a one-off or short term personal benefit.
4. Disclosing a Conflict of Interest
What good disclosure looks like
Good disclosure gives other Stakeholders what they need to assess your Conflict of Interest.
For each benefit that only you stand to gain, your disclosure should cover the Nature and Magnitude of the benefit, and its Connection to this specific decision. Be specific, and where benefits are difficult to quantify, provide enough context to assess them.
Where to disclose
Stakeholders bound to the Policy by a Constitutional Document
If you are bound to the Conflict of Interest Policy by a Constitutional Document, refer first to that document for rules about where to disclose your Conflict of Interest.
All stakeholders
- For a Conflict of Interest relating to a specific proposal, disclose on the Forum thread for that proposal.
- For Delegates with Conflicts of Interest that are likely to affect multiple decisions, disclose on your Delegate Statement, and if you have one, on your Delegate thread.
Reporting a concern about another Stakeholder's undisclosed COI
- Raise it directly with the Stakeholder in private first, where appropriate.
- If unresolved, raise it on the relevant Forum thread, or following the process in the Code of Conduct.
- If the Stakeholder is bound to the Policy through a Constitutional Document, follow the process in that document.
5. Participating when you have a Conflict of Interest
If you are bound to the Policy by a Constitutional Document, refer to that document first for rules about participating with a Conflict of Interest.
Where the magnitude of your conflict is high, even with disclosure, any participation may call the legitimacy of the decision into question. Consider withdrawing from one or more of the following levels of participation in the decision. They are presented in order of increasing potential to harm the decision process:
- Sharing facts – Providing factual information or expertise usually serves the decision process, even with a significant conflict, provided it is clearly informational rather than advocacy.
- Voting – The more disproportionate your benefit, the stronger the case for stepping back from voting.
- Advocating – Publicly or privately making the case for an outcome is the most problematic form of participation when you have a conflict. Consider whether your contribution is adding information or reinforcing your position.
6. Examples
The examples below illustrate how to apply the Policy in practice, across different scenarios.
Protocol Upgrades
Situation You are voting on technical upgrades to the NEAR protocol (performance improvements, security patches, consensus changes). You hold 250k NEAR tokens but have no special stake in projects that would specifically benefit beyond general ecosystem improvement.
Assessment No conflict exists. All tokenholders benefit proportionally from protocol improvements – everyone gains equally per token held. Your token holdings create alignment with ecosystem success, not conflict. This is exactly the aligned participation House of Stake is designed for.
Recommended Actions Disclosure: Not required. Participation: Full participation appropriate.
Past Employment
Situation You left your job at a company three years ago with no ongoing financial interest, equity, or advisory role. That company is now seeking NEAR House of Stake funding for a NEAR integration project.
Assessment No conflict exists. Three years and complete financial separation mean you receive no benefit from the company's proposal. Time decay means others likely wouldn't question your balance of interests. However, if the relationship was particularly senior or prominent, voluntary disclosure may prevent any appearance concerns.
Recommended Actions Disclosure: Not required by policy, but voluntarily disclose if relationship was prominent. Participation: Full participation appropriate.
NFT Holdings
Situation You own NFTs from a project, now worth 1m portfolio. That NFT project is seeking integration support from NEAR House of Stake.
Assessment Conflict exists but magnitude is small. Your NFTs would appreciate if the project receives support – a benefit others don't share. Given the small portfolio percentage, this likely wouldn't meaningfully influence participation. However, on-chain holdings are visible and some might question them. Key factor: size relative to circumstances.
Recommended Actions Disclosure: Disclose NFT ownership and approximate portfolio percentage. Participation: Consider stepping back from strong advocacy.
Public Endorsement
Situation You've publicly endorsed a project via social media and blog posts. That project now seeks NEAR House of Stake grants. You have no financial stake.
Assessment Conflict exists through reputational stake. You look prescient if the project succeeds, questionable if it fails. This creates a natural tendency to defend past judgments. Public endorsement creates the appearance of investment beyond ecosystem interests, even without economic benefit. Key factor: professional (reputational) benefit.
Recommended Actions Disclosure: Disclose prior public endorsement. Participation: Provide factual information, if your expertise is essential. Consider stepping back from advocacy.
Spouse Works for Grantee
Situation Your spouse works as a senior developer for a company that has submitted a grant application to NEAR House of Stake.
Assessment Conflict exists. Your spouse's employment means the company's success has a direct effect on your household income – a benefit others don't share. The seniority of the role increases the likelihood that the grant outcome affects your spouse's position or compensation. Key factor: personal benefit.
Recommended Actions Disclosure: Disclose your spouse's employment and their role at the company. Participation: Provide factual information, if your expertise is essential. Consider stepping back from advocacy. Consider withdrawing from voting.
Unpaid Advisor
Situation You provide occasional strategic guidance to a project as an unpaid advisor. This relationship isn't publicly known. That project submits a proposal to NEAR House of Stake.
Assessment Clear conflict exists. You gain professional benefits others don't: reputational stake, potential future compensation, relationship capital. Advisory relationships create natural advocacy that would likely influence participation even unpaid. Undisclosed advisory creates significant legitimacy risk. Key factor: professional benefits.
Recommended Actions Disclosure: Immediately disclose the advisory relationship. Participation: Provide factual information, if your expertise is essential. Consider stepping back from advocacy. Consider withdrawing from voting.
Token Holdings in Applicant Project
Situation You own tokens in a project (acquired as early supporter, now worth $15,000 which is 20% of your portfolio). That project requests NEAR House of Stake support for integration work and potential token incentives.
Assessment Conflict exists. Your tokens would appreciate from NEAR House of Stake support – a disproportionate benefit. Both the absolute amount and portfolio percentage are enough to potentially bias judgment. Others could question your balance given the self-interest your holdings create. Key factors: economic benefit; size relative to circumstances.
Recommended Actions Disclosure: Immediately disclose holdings with approximate value and enough context to assess their significance to you. Participation: Provide factual information, if your expertise is essential. Consider stepping back from advocacy. Consider withdrawing from voting.
Endorsed Delegates Compensation
Situation A proposal would introduce compensation for Endorsed Delegates, effective immediately. You currently serve as an Endorsed Delegate.
Assessment Maximum conflict exists. You and all other Endorsed Delegates would gain direct, immediate financial benefit unavailable to non-Endorsed Delegates. While multiple people receive the benefit, this group remains highly selective compared to all Stakeholders participating in the decision. This is effectively voting to pay yourself. Key factors: economic benefit; number of others receiving a similar benefit.
Recommended Actions Disclosure: Conflict is self-evident but explicitly acknowledge it. Participation: Consider stepping back from advocacy. Consider withdrawing from voting.