HSP-007: Transfer of all HoS-related Service Providers from NF to House of Stake Governance

1. 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.

---

2. 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.

---

3. 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:

---

4. 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.

---

5. 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.

---

6. 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

---

7. 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

---

8. Alignment with HoS Principles

This proposal directly supports core HoS values:

Decentralization – HoS governs HoS, not NF
Transparency – Open budgets and reporting
Accountability – Performance-based funding
Meritocracy – Work goes to those who deliver
Permissionless Participation – Anyone can propose solutions
Community Ownership – The ecosystem decides, not a foundation

This is how real decentralized governance operates.