Code of Conduct
Join us in the co-creation of the Code of Conduct for House of Stake. Your input is crucial in shaping our future.
Contribute
1. Our Pledge
1.1 We, as members, contributors, delegates, moderators, stewards, and other participants of the House of Stake (HoS), pledge to create a governance environment where participation is safe, inclusive, and transparent.
1.2 Commitments:
1.2.1 Act with professionalism, integrity, and respect in all spaces.
1.2.2 Align behavior with NEAR’s long-term interests and ecosystem health.
1.2.3 Protect privacy, safety, and data integrity.
1.2.4 Use technology, including AI, in an ethical, transparent, and accountable way.
1.3 Applicability:
This pledge applies to on-chain decisions, off-chain forums, events, and public representation of HoS.
2. Purpose & Scope
2.1 Purpose:
Ensure a healthy culture of productive participation in achieving House of Stake's Mission.
2.2 Scope of Application:
2.2.1 On-chain: including but not limited to proposal submission, delegate voting, treasury allocation, multisig participation.
2.2.2 Off-chain: including but not limited to governance forums, Discord, Telegram, GitHub, social media, community calls.
2.2.3 Community & Events: including but not limited to workshops, hackathons, AMAs, partnerships, and DAO-to-DAO representation.
2.3 Definitions:
2.3.1 Token-holders: participants with stake or voting rights.
2.3.2 Delegates: participants acting with proxied voting authority.
2.3.3 Moderators: individuals tasked with managing discussion, intake, assessment and enforcement.
2.3.4 Stewards: elected or appointed roles in HoS committees, councils or working groups (including the CoC Appeals Panel).
2.3.5 Contributors: developers, writers, organizers, and others engaged in HoS activities.
2.4 Appointment of Stewards
Stewards are currently appointed by NEAR Foundation, until which time that authority can be granted to House of Stake to appoint these.
3. Values & Standards
3.1 Agreed Behaviors
3.1.1 Act in good faith and perform due diligence before voting or advising.
3.1.2 Make your best effort to resolve disputes or issues privately or with a moderator instead of escalating to public channels.
3.1.3 Disclose conflicts of interest, according to the Conflict of Interest Policy.
3.1.4 Provide clear rationales for governance actions.
3.1.5 Communicate with respect, inclusivity, and professionalism.
3.1.6 Protect the privacy, dignity, and safety of community members.
3.1.7 Collaborate transparently; document decisions; support iterative improvement.
3.2 Prohibited Behaviors
3.2.1 Harassment, bullying, stalking, or identity-based abuse.
3.2.2 Plagiarism, falsification, or misrepresentation of work.
3.2.3 Vote-buying, bribery, or covert influence.
3.2.4 Failure to disclose conflicts of interest.
3.2.5 Doxxing, privacy violations, or unauthorized data exposure.
3.2.6 Spamming, shilling, brigading, disinformation, or sabotage.
3.2.7 Making unsubstantiated public accusations against any HoS participant, contributor, or program — including on external platforms (social media, podcasts, media, or other public forums) — without first seeking clarification or following reporting channels.
3.3 Good Practice Example
A delegate suspects irregularities in a funding decision. They first request clarification privately from the relevant working group, then file a report through the official HoS intake form with supporting evidence.
3.4 Bad Practice Example
A contributor tweets that a House of Stake program is “stealing funds” without evidence, instead of using reporting channels. The claim is later deleted, but reputational harm has already occurred.
4. Confidentiality & Financial Independence
4.1 Agreed Behaviors
4.1.1 Respect confidentiality and uphold privacy in all processes.
4.1.2 Maintain independence in decision-making; proactively disclose financial or personal interests when relevant.
4.2 Prohibited Behaviors
4.2.1 Disclosing personal information without explicit consent. This includes contact details, physical location, financial data, wallet addresses, or any information that could enable identification, coercion, or reputational harm.
4.2.1 Accepting undisclosed compensation or benefits in relation to governance actions.
4.3 Good Practice Example:
Challenging the value for money of a particular piece of work, based on substantiated evidence.
4.4 Bad Practice Example:
A member speculates publicly about another’s earnings to undermine their credibility.
5. Work Quality, Pace, and Feedback
5.1 Agreed Behaviors
5.1.1 Encourage timely contributions while respecting diverse work rhythms.
5.1.2 Provide feedback that is constructive, specific, balanced, and respectful.
5.1.3 Recognize and credit the efforts of others.
5.1.4 Foster a safe, professional, and supportive environment.
5.1.5 Assess ideas, work and deliverables based on the arguments and evidence that support them, not personal attacks targeting the character, identity, or unrelated attributes of a member.
5.1.6 Provide appropriate feedback based on the stage a piece of work is at.
5.1.7 Give people a fair chance, space and time to do the work and do it well.
5.2 Prohibited Behaviors
5.2.1 Dismissing contributions with superficial or derogatory remarks.
5.2.2 Making baseless criticism without representative evidence.
5.2.3 Undue or hostile pressure to conform to arbitrary work pace or rhythms. Constructive encouragement is acceptable.
5.2.4 Generalized criticism without constructive intent.
5.2.5 Any pressure, speculation, or unconstructive criticism that harms collaboration.
5.2.6 Avoid toxic or hostile criticism disguised as urgency.
5.3 Good Practice Example:
A reviewer highlights strengths and specific improvements with constructive feedback and actionable suggestions.
5.4 Bad Practice Example:
A member mocks another as “lazy” or “too slow” without understanding the size, complexity, nature of the work type, it's dependencies, review processes, etc. that a piece of work may need to go through to be done.
6. Reporting & Intake
6.1 Anyone who experiences or witnesses a potential violation is encouraged to report it as described below.
6.2 Moderators will also pro-actively monitor for violations and process those on behalf of the community.
6.3 Reporting Channels (to be set up)
6.3.1 Confidential Code of Conduct complaint form with option to submit anonymously (official HoS portal).
6.3.2 Email: coc@houseofstake.org (alternative submission if needed)
6.3.3 Direct contact with the current Community & Moderation team at events or in community channels or calls.
6.4 Intake & Triage
6.4.1 Acknowledgement of received complaint by the Community and Moderation team, this includes explaining what action they will take.
6.4.2 Urgency assessment within 48 hours to address immediate risks to safety or governance integrity.
6.4.3 Confidential handling; reporter identities protected where possible.
6.4.4 Detect abuse of process (e.g., repeated malicious or false reports) is a violation.
6.5 Good Practice Example:
A member reports a prohibited behavior with timestamps and supporting evidence.
6.6 Bad Practice Example:
A member files repeated false reports to harass another participant.
7. Moderation Standards
7.1 Impartiality: moderators must have no conflicts of interest.
7.2 Cultural and linguistic competence: include moderators who understand the parties’ context.
7.3 Documentation: maintain secure records, a clear evidence trail, and access controls.
7.4 Timeliness: target resolution within 14 days; document and communicate extensions.
7.5 AI oversight: AI tools may assist with triage or pattern detection; humans make final decisions.
7.6 Evidence standards: use verifiable records (e.g., logs, messages, transactions) and note limitations.
7.7 Good Practice Example:
Assign moderators from outside the immediate dispute to ensure impartiality.
7.8 Bad Practice Example:
Allowing a conflicted delegate to oversee a case involving their own committee.
8. Enforcement & Remedies
8.1 Principles: proportionality, predictability, and restoration where feasible.
8.2 Feedback
8.2.1 Observation: first, minor or potential violation.
8.2.2 Consequence: private or public feedback, at Moderator's discretion.
8.2.3 Repair: acknowledgement, clarification, improvement in behaviour.
8.3 Warning
8.3.1 Observation: feedback ignored or serious violation
8.3.2 Consequence: private or public written notice with requested changes.
8.3.3 Repair: apology, acknowledgement, or clarification.
8.4 Temporary Restriction
8.4.1 Observation: repeated or significant violation
8.4.2 Consequence: time-bound restriction or suspension from channels or roles.
8.4.3 Repair: reflection, mediation and a plan for corrective steps with conditions for return defined.
8.5 Permanent Ban
8.5.1 Observation: severe violation undermining safety or governance integrity or legitimacy
8.5.2 Consequence: removal from all governance spaces (on-chain and off-chain) to the greatest extent possible.
8.5.3 Repair: not applicable; reserved for irreparable breaches of trust.
8.6 Proportionality Factors
Moderators will exercise judgement on the level of remedies based on intent, impact, prior history, cooperation, and community safety.
9. Appeals Process
9.1 Appeals Panel: at least 3 independent members, rotating annually; no conflicts of interest.
9.2 Criteria: temporary restrictions and permanent bans can be appealed based upon new evidence, a claim of misinterpreted evidence, procedural error or disproportionate sanctions.
9.3 Timeframe: submit within 14 days; decision within 30 days.
9.4 Submission: encrypted form or direct email to the Panel’s published contact.
9.5 Finality: Panel decisions are binding, subject to community ratification in exceptional cases.
9.6 Good Practice Example:
A sanctioned member submits new logs that change the assessment; sanction reduced.
9.7 Bad Practice Example:
Multiple frivolous appeals filed to delay enforcement.
10. Risk Disclosures & Limitations
10.1 Enforcement capacity depends on moderator resources and jurisdictional constraints.
10.2 On-chain actions may be irreversible; remedies cannot fully counteract immutability.
10.3 This CoC complements applicable law; it does not replace legal rights or obligations.
10.4 Jurisdictional differences may require tailored measures while upholding core principles.
11. Transparency & Governance Oversight
11.1 All reports, evidence, decisions and feedback and enforcement actions are logged in an auditable but privacy-preserving way.
11.2 Annual reports summarize cases, categories, timelines, outcomes, and reforms (respecting privacy where required).
11.3 Committees overseeing this CoC maintain a public change log and explain major policy updates.
11.4 Moderation team disclose their affliations, incentives and responsibilies to reduce conflicts of interest.
12. Contact & Amendments
12.1 Contact: info@houseofstake.org.
12.2 Amendments: updates follow a public notice and versioning process with a “Last Updated” date.
12.3 Effective Date: this CoC takes effect upon community ratification and remains in force until amended.