HSP-007: Transfer of all HoS-related Service Providers from NF to House of Stake Governance #7
Description
HSP-007: Transfer of all HoS-related Service Providers from NF to House of Stake Governance
- Summary
This proposal transfers all service providers whose work directly impacts the House of Stake (HoS) from private NEAR Foundation (NF) control to transparent, community-driven House of Stake governance.
Currently, key vendors (including but not limited to Gauntlet, Agoga, Hack Humanity, and others) are funded and managed by the NF without public budgets, KPIs, or accountability. This centralization contradicts the core mission of HoS as the decentralized governance layer of NEAR.
Under this proposal, all HoS-related service providers must submit monthly funding proposals to HoS, report publicly on their work, and be subject to approval, renewal, or replacement by the HoS community.
- Problem / Motivation
Today, NEAR Foundation directly selects, funds, and manages the service providers who shape critical parts of HoS governance, economics, documentation, research, and process design. This creates several major issues:
No transparency – Budgets, deliverables, and performance are not publicly disclosed.
No accountability – Vendors operate without KPIs or community oversight.
No competition – Other contributors cannot propose alternative solutions.
Slow progress – Work is delayed despite large budgets and extensive travel.
Power imbalance – NF effectively controls HoS through its vendors.
Violation of decentralization – HoS cannot claim to be the governance layer while key governance work is outsourced without community consent.
If House of Stake is truly the governance layer of NEAR, then HoS must control its own service providers — not NF.
- Proposed Solution
Transfer all HoS-related service providers from NF funding and control to House of Stake governance, including but not limited to:
Gauntlet
Agoga
Hack Humanity
Any current or future provider whose scope affects HoS governance, structure, economics, documentation, or operations.
These providers will no longer receive private NF funding for HoS-related work.
Instead, they must follow a transparent, community-owned process under HoS:
- Governance Model: “No Funding Without Accountability”
All HoS-related service providers must:
✅ Submit monthly funding proposals to House of Stake✅ Define clear deliverables / KPIs✅ Receive community approval before funding✅ Publish monthly progress reports (what was done, results, impact)✅ Be subject to renewal, modification, or termination by HoS✅ Compete with alternative providers if performance is poor
Any provider refusing transparency or oversight should not work on HoS governance.
- House of Stake as the Approval Authority
The House of Stake governance system (delegates, working groups, token holders) will:
Review proposals from service providers
Approve or deny funding
Evaluate monthly reports
Request improvements or changes
Replace providers if necessary
Ensure alignment with HoS mission
HoS, not NF, becomes the center of decision-making for its own governance infrastructure.
- Accountability & Transparency Benefits
By moving providers under HoS governance, we achieve:
✅ Full budget transparency✅ Clear KPIs and deliverables✅ Faster execution✅ Competitive selection (best ideas win)✅ Community ownership✅ End of backroom deals✅ Real decentralization in practice
- Implementation Plan
Phase 1: Transition (30–60 days)
HoS identifies all current vendors working on HoS-related deliverables
NF ceases direct funding for HoS work
Providers prepare their first HoS proposals
Phase 2: Integration
Providers submit monthly proposals to HoS
Community reviews and votes
KPIs and reporting begin immediately
Phase 3: Optimization
Underperforming providers can be replaced
New contributors can compete for work
Governance becomes agile and accountable
- Alignment with HoS Principles
This proposal directly supports core HoS values:
Decentralization – HoS governs HoS, not NFTransparency – Open budgets and reportingAccountability – Performance-based fundingMeritocracy – Work goes to those who deliverPermissionless Participation – Anyone can propose solutionsCommunity Ownership – The ecosystem decides, not a foundation
This is how real decentralized governance operates.