HSP-008: Improving Transparency and Accountability in Endorsed Delegate Selection #8
Description
HSP-008: Improving Transparency and Accountability in Endorsed Delegate Selection
- Summary
This proposal addresses serious transparency and conflict-of-interest issues in the initial selection of Endorsed Delegates for House of Stake (HoS).The current endorsed list includes individuals and entities with direct financial or contractual ties to the NEAR Foundation (NF), yet the Screening Committee did not disclose criteria, scoring methods, or voting behavior.
This proposal requires the publication of all selection criteria, votes, comments, conflicts of interest, and financial expenditures connected to the delegate selection process — including off-chain events such as the Cannes offsite.Furthermore, it calls for the removal of any endorsed delegate who was selected despite a clear conflict of interest.
- Background
Endorsed Delegates are expected to represent the community and participate in HoS governance on behalf of token holders.However, the current selection process was conducted entirely off-chain and without transparency. Several red flags have been identified:
No published evaluation criteria or scoring rubric
No disclosure of voting records or abstentions
NF contractors (e.g. Nearweek, Yuen) were endorsed despite conflicts of interest
Committee members with NF connections did not recuse themselves
Public explanations do not match the actual process
Community concerns were left unaddressed
This creates the perception — and potential reality — of favoritism, centralized influence, and manipulation.
- Issues Identified
Lack of Transparency
No criteria published
No scoring or weighting method shown
No individual comments or justification provided
Conflicts of Interest
Endorsed Delegates include NF-funded contractors
Screening Committee members with NF ties voted on NF-related candidates
No self-recusal despite obvious conflict
Off-Chain, Opaque Process
No on-chain record
No community oversight
No accountability mechanism
Misleading Communication
Public statements about the process do not align with internal actions
Concerns raised by community members were not acknowledged or addressed
- Proposal: Required Transparency and Corrective Actions
To restore community trust and ensure legitimacy, the following actions are proposed:
A. Publish Full Selection Criteria and Evaluation Details
All criteria and weighting used
Scoring or evaluation breakdown per candidate
Written comments or feedback from the Screening Committee
B. Publish Voting Records and Conflicts
Who voted for each candidate
Who abstained (or failed to abstain)
Explanation of why NF-affiliated candidates were approved
Justification for allowing committee members with NF ties to vote
C. Remove Endorsed Delegates with Conflict of Interest
Any endorsed delegate who:
Is a contractor, employee, or funded entity of NEAR Foundation
Works for or receives payment from NF or its subsidiaries… must be disqualified and removed from the endorsed list.
(Examples include but are not limited to Nearweek, Yuen, and similar NF-affiliated entities.)
If they wish to serve as delegates, they must reapply under a conflict-free, transparent process in the future.
D. Financial Transparency: Publish All HoS-Related Budgets Since 2025 (This is option if there is not trade secret)
Including:
All service providers working on HoS (e.g. Gauntlet, Agoga, Hack Humanity, etc.)
Total amounts paid
Purpose and scope of work
Deliverables and outcomes produced
E. Full Transparency on the Cannes Offsite
The following must be disclosed:
Total budget spent on the event
Source of funds (NF, HoS, other)
List of all participants
Who received travel or lodging payments
Mandatory individual report from each participant:
Why they attended
What they contributed to HoS
What results were produced as a direct outcome
F. Correction of Public Narrative
The Screening Committee must publicly correct any statements that:
Misrepresent the selection process
Omit material facts
Ignore conflict-of-interest concerns
Claim transparency where there was none
- Expected Outcomes
By implementing this proposal, HoS will:
✅ Restore legitimacy to the delegate system✅ Expose and correct conflicts of interest✅ Rebuild trust between delegates and the community✅ Prevent centralization of influence by NF✅ Establish transparency as a non-negotiable governance standard✅ Set a precedent: No representation without accountability