Over the past weeks, the community has put remarkable effort into designing our constitutional documents.

Hack Humanity has led the charge with:

• 2 Endorsed Delegate Workshops focused on defining our Mission–Vision–Values
• 7 Community Co-Creation Workshops refining our governance frameworks together with the ecosystem

370 Feedback Items Processed!

In total, the community contributed an impressive 370 feedback items, every single one reviewed and processed by the document authors. What a strong demonstration of HoS engagement!

A special shout-out to all community contributors, in particular @Othman , @coffee-crusher , @fiatisabubble , @Reza_Rayman , Oration Drr, @Yuen, @Dacha for feedback! And kudos to the Hack Humanity team, including @KlausBrave, @dancunningham, @HumbertoBesso, @juankbell, disruptionjoe, haenko, lillian.w, danrandow, and Momo for driving these workshops and shepherding the documents. (Apparently I can only tag 10 people. The rest of you are VIPs in spirit. Consider yourselves tagged with extra sparkle. )

Together, we’ve built the foundation!
Yet today, none of these charters are ratified — while valuable proposals are waiting in the pipeline.
It’s time to change that.

To govern responsibly, every community member should have clear, accessible information on:

• Who the delegates and endorsed delegates are, and how voting power is allocated
• How the Screening Committee works and how it votes
• How to submit proposals
• How we enforce transparency and integrity, including Conflict of Interest rules
• And everything necessary to make decisions that move NEAR toward our North Star:
  Becoming the blockchain for AI, where AI serves people — not platforms.

Governance Sprint (Now–Dec 19)

We are kicking off the first governance sprint to ratify our core governance documents. These will serve as the official decision-making framework for House of Stake:

Documents to ratify:

• Constitution (Status: WIP)
• Mission, Vision, Values (Status: Sensing Vote) proposals/HSPs/hsp-006.md at c8530d4a823d8a8301d1f69dd0aa7d189939cf8f · houseofstake/proposals · GitHub
• Screening Committee Charter (Status: WIP)
• Endorsed Delegate Charter (Status: WIP)
• Proposal Process Charter (Status: WIP)
• Code of Conduct (Status: Sensing Vote) proposals/HSPs/hsp-006.md at c8530d4a823d8a8301d1f69dd0aa7d189939cf8f · houseofstake/proposals · GitHub
• Conflict of Interest Policy (Status: Forum feedback, Draft) HSP-XXX: House of Stake - Conflicts of Interest Policy

(All links tba as soon as proposals are live for feedback on the forum and/or voting)

Key Priority

Our most important goal is to become fully operational, so that any proposal can be submitted and voted on with confidence.

If ratification of these constitutional documents is rejected, proposals cannot proceed or may be deemed illegitimate until we agree on the policy framework first.

That’s why these documents are designed to be:

• Executable immediately
• Living policies that can be updated later as we learn and iterate

This is the HoS way: governance that works now, improves continuously, and empowers the community.

What’s Next

For proposals that have completed the deliberation period on the forum:
We’ll begin submitting sensing and/or decision proposals starting Saturday, Nov 29.
All delegates are invited to review and vote.

For proposals that are still in the forum deliberation period:
We’ll publish updated versions for final feedback on the forum, leading to decision proposals once the period completes. Note: Such proposals are flagged with HSP-XXX (or HSP-[number]).

For all proposals:
All documents will proceed to decision proposals, requiring both a majority yes vote from the Screening Committee and a 67% “yes” vote from delegators to pass. Once passed, the documents become enforceable policies and will be published at houseofstake.org as the official reference for the community.

This allows delegates, voters, committee members, the governing body, the HoS and NEAR Foundation to be held accountable to the same standards.

Call to Action

You’ve all put tons of work into these docs, now let’s get them over the finish line and ratified!

• Review the upcoming Proposals
• Lock NEAR and delegate veNEAR
• Contact your delegate, and make them…
• VOTE!

AK_HoG:

• Who the delegates and endorsed delegates are, and how voting power is allocated
• How the Screening Committee works and how it votes
• How to submit proposals
• How we enforce transparency and integrity, including Conflict of Interest rules
• And everything necessary to make decisions that move NEAR toward our North Star:
  Becoming the blockchain for AI, where AI serves people — not platforms.

let’s build it together! We need to educate community!

We are excited to see those constitutional documents to be ratified soon. Appreciated all the work done by Hack Humanity team and contributors.

We’d like to point out a couple of points to be clarified before moving forward:

AK_HoG:

How the Screening Committee works and how it votes

Is SC going to vote?

AK_HoG:

(Links tba as soon as votes are live)

We would like to review those documents before the votes are live.

AK_HoG:

Living policies that can be updated later as we learn and iterate

What do you think about the process of updating them?

AK_HoG:

We’ll begin submitting sensing and/or decision proposals starting Saturday, Nov 29.

Which proposals need sensing and which don’t?

AK_HoG:

For proposals still in their temperature check:

Which proposals are considered in “temperature check”? (To be honest, “sensing” and “temperature check” mean pretty much the same thing. What’s the purpose of “sensing” proposal again?)

AK_HoG:

a 67% “yes” vote from delegators to pass.

Delegates? Also, we are not aware the 2/3 yes rule. Has it been already implemented in the Agora?

AK_HoG:

Once passed, the documents become enforceable policies

Who will enforce those policies?

AK_HoG:

requiring both a majority yes vote from the Screening Committee

Quick clarification: as things stand today, there’s no majority voting by the screening committee. Any screening committee member can unilaterally approve a proposal for voting. I believe we intend to change this in future.

Tane:

Which proposals are considered in “temperature check”? (To be honest, “sensing” and “temperature check” mean pretty much the same thing. What’s the purpose of “sensing” proposal again?)

“Temperature check” is a more informal process that happens here on the forum: post a proposal and entertain feedback. “Sensing proposal” is a more formal mechanism where (following the temperature check period) all delegates can vote on a proposal, but the outcome of the vote is non-binding.

Thanks for the thoughtful questions, @Tane.
They highlight exactly why we need clear, ratified documents in place.

To your questions

Is the Screening Committee going to vote?

According to our Constitution draft, the Screening Committee will review proposals, make decisions, and publish the rationale. There is no on-chain vote at this stage. I’m in touch with SC to ensure the reviewal/reporting process runs smoothly for the upcoming proposals.

We would like to review those documents before the votes are live.

100% agreed. I’ll update the post with forum links for review before any vote goes live.

What do you think about the process of updating them?

I’m currently drafting a Q1–Q2 2026 DAO Ops plan and budget, which will define roles, activities, and compensation to support smooth operations.
Think of feedback channels, a role/team responsible to integrate revisions, structured update sprints and ratification votes.
Over the next 12 months, we’ll see what works and refine what doesn’t, and update constitutional documents as we learn.

Which proposals need sensing and which don’t?

There is no universal rule. The key factor is time and maturity of the proposal. If a document has already gone through sufficient rounds of feedback, we can skip a sensing vote and go directly to a decision vote, and for some proposals in this sprint we feel confident to do so.
Also note: every proposal stays on the forum for 7 days for final feedback before voting.

Which proposals are considered in “temperature check”? (To be honest, “sensing” and “temperature check” mean pretty much the same thing. What’s the purpose of “sensing” proposal again?)

Point taken, the terminology needs clarity. That’s precisely why we need these docs.
@Klaus, could you please add a short clarification note on terminology and how it’ll be used in the docs?

Delegates? Also, we are not aware the 2/3 yes rule. Has it been already implemented in the Agora?

The 2/3 rule is defined in the current constitution draft for constitutional votes. I’m confirming with Agora whether there are any technical constraints to applying it in the upcoming votings.

Who will enforce those policies?

In short: we all.

• Only delegates vote? Code enforces.
• A proposal lacks details? Flag it!
• Potential conflict of interest? Report it using the COI policy.

Constitutional documents empower the community to enforce fairness, transparency, and legitimate decision-making. We all share responsibility for applying these rules, and we put them into force by ratifying them.

lane:

“Temperature check” is a more informal process that happens here on the forum: post a proposal and entertain feedback.

Thanks for your clarification. We’d define this period as “Recommended discussion period” or something as it’s an informal process. Temperature checks are generally used for “sensing proposals” at other DAOs utilizing Snapshot.

Thanks for your quick replies. We will continue to diligently review and vote on proposals with being informed and confident.

AK_HoG:

According to our Constitution draft, the Screening Committee will review proposals, make decisions, and publish the rationale. There is no on-chain vote at this stage.

According to this and Lane’s clarification, the below text seems confusing.

AK_HoG:

How the Screening Committee works and how it votes

AK_HoG:

I’m currently drafting a Q1–Q2 2026 DAO Ops plan and budget, which will define roles, activities, and compensation to support smooth operations.

We interpret this into a rough notion that the ratified constitutions and policies will be in effect until 2026 Q2 (or Q3), while there will be feedback channels and team(s) to revise them if needed.

AK_HoG:

If a document has already gone through sufficient rounds of feedback, we can skip a sensing vote and go directly to a decision vote, and for some proposals in this sprint we feel confident to do so.

Who would evaluate the above? Not all the future proposal authors understand the context, history and nuance of how proposals should proceed. How about SC “recommending” if “sensing” proposal is needed or not?

AK_HoG:

Point taken, the terminology needs clarity. That’s precisely why we need these docs.

Recommended an alternative in Ratifying Our Constitutional Documents: Upcoming Proposals Dec 2025 - #6 by Tane

AK_HoG:

I’m confirming with Agora whether there are any technical constraints to applying it in the upcoming votings.

Sounds good. The governance related parameters should be visible in the Agora UI as well.
Also, please clarify “delegates” or “delegators” in the text.

AK_HoG:

In short: we all.

• Only delegates vote? Code enforces.
• A proposal lacks details? Flag it!
• Potential conflict of interest? Report it using the COI policy.

We feel this approach would be naive. No one would be the one that stirs up troubles without clear incentives. There has been discussions about ombudsman during the co-creation cycle, which would be suitable to be responsible for “enforcements” of the policies.

AK_HoG:

Is the Screening Committee going to vote?

According to our Constitution draft, the Screening Committee will review proposals, make decisions, and publish the rationale. There is no on-chain vote at this stage.

One more quick clarification: there’s no screening committee “voting” at this stage, as I pointed out above, but screening committee approvals (i.e., approving a draft proposal for voting) are an on chain action. Here’s a recent example: https://nearblocks.io/txns/AWWwdjmz9nwWYs8J6Z9JdrgryxCskLZPayiwZpabcocw and you can view the full list in this thread: Screening Committee Transparency Thread.

lane:

Tane:

Which proposals are considered in “temperature check”? (To be honest, “sensing” and “temperature check” mean pretty much the same thing. What’s the purpose of “sensing” proposal again?)

“Temperature check” is a more informal process that happens here on the forum: post a proposal and entertain feedback. “Sensing proposal” is a more formal mechanism where (following the temperature check period) all delegates can vote on a proposal, but the outcome of the vote is non-binding.

AK_HoG:

Which proposals are considered in “temperature check”? (To be honest, “sensing” and “temperature check” mean pretty much the same thing. What’s the purpose of “sensing” proposal again?)

Point taken, the terminology needs clarity.

We’re not all using these terms the same way. Had a quick conversation with @KlausBrave and @AK_HoG and we agreed to phase out the term “temperature check” since it’s vague, and instead:

We call the Forum Post: Feedback Period (not Temperature Check)
We call the Sensing Proposal: Sensing Proposal (not Temperature Check)

Let’s make sure the docs all reflect this.

L

Thanks @Tane for your questions!

Let’s me respond point by point:

How the Screening Committee works/on-chain votes of Screening Committee

Thanks, @Lane, for your comments. Screening Committee decisions will be recorded on-chain.

Ratifying Our Constitutional Documents: Upcoming Proposals Dec 2025 Governance

One more quick clarification: there’s no screening committee “voting” at this stage, as I pointed out above, but screening committee approvals (i.e., approving a draft proposal for voting) are an on chain action. Here’s a recent example: https://nearblocks.io/txns/AWWwdjmz9nwWYs8J6Z9JdrgryxCskLZPayiwZpabcocw and you can view the full list in this thread: Screening Committee Transparency Thread. “Temperature check” is a more informal process that happens here on the forum: post a proposal and …

Please also keep an eye out for the upcoming Screening Committee Charter proposal, which will provide more detail on this role.

We interpret this into a rough notion that the ratified constitutions and policies will be in effect until 2026 Q2 (or Q3), while there will be feedback channels and team(s) to revise them if needed.

That’s correct. Expect a proposal outlining roles and responsibilities on this topic after we’ve ratified the constitutional documents.

Who would evaluate the above? Not all the future proposal authors understand the context, history and nuance of how proposals should proceed. How about SC “recommending” if “sensing” proposal is needed or not?

Great point. There will be several review steps before voting, such as feedback on the forum, the HSP Editor review, and the Screening Committee evaluation. At any of these stages, the need for a Sensing Proposal can be discussed.
That said, proposers should be encouraged to engage with the community early to gauge support. See also “shepherding your HSP” proposals/HSPs/hsp-001.md at main · houseofstake/proposals · GitHub
And remember, the Screening Committee does not make the final decision, the delegates do.
In my experience, timing is also important: a Sensing Vote often requires more time, which can be a decisive factor.

Recommended an alternative in Ratifying Our Constitutional Documents: Upcoming Proposals Dec 2025 - #6 by Tane

Thanks for sharing! @KlausBrave , please take note. His team is currently working intensively to find the best solution.

Sounds good. The governance related parameters should be visible in the Agora UI as well.
Also, please clarify “delegates” or “delegators” in the text.

Noted. We’re currently reviewing the smart contract implementation for voting. If implementing a 2/3 threshold requires significant development time, we may need to temporarily fall back to simple majority for ratification to avoid delaying this and future proposals.
I’ll keep everyone updated.

We feel this approach would be naive. No one would be the one that stirs up troubles without clear incentives. There has been discussions about ombudsman during the co-creation cycle, which would be suitable to be responsible for “enforcements” of the policies.

Agreed. Our constitutional documents do include an Ombudsman role, along with reporting channels and other checkpoints in the proposal process to help enforce policies.

That said, I strongly encourage everyone in the House of Stake to take responsibility for our shared culture.
Decentralization comes with decentralized responsibility!
In practice, enforcing policies requires care and attention from many people, not just the Ombudsman.
That said, thanks again for your questions @Tane !

Thanks for your clarifications, @AK_HoG. We will review the proposals as they are provided and diligently vote on the proposals with our rationales.

Quick update on where we are with ratifying our governance documents:

First off , huge thank you to everyone who voted on the Mission, Vision, Values sensing proposal. After the full 7-day sensing period, we landed at almost 81% yes.
That’s a fantastic signal that the HoS community is aligned behind this document!

Next step: We’ll move the MVV into a decision vote.

Timeline & What’s Coming

We’ll continue with the MVV decision vote and the forum discussions for the remaining policy documents in early January.

Why January?

Well… let’s just say rolling out governance software is basically like any software: We all (me included) confidently nod at timelines… and then the details show up and ruin the party.
Our current voting mechanism only supports simple majority voting; for constitutional documents (which require a 67% supermajority) this feature isn’t live yet. The software update and its security audit are still in progress, and we want to make sure everything works exactly as intended before we ask the community to make binding decisions.

Also, it’s the holiday season. Nobody wants a constitutional vote sneaking by while half the community is traveling, offline, or in a sugar cookie coma.

And finally: many of you have shared thoughtful feedback on documents currently under discussion, such as the Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest policy. Some of these policies depend on each other, and we need to make sure everything is aligned and consistent before presenting the final versions for voting.

Recent forum comments show just how seriously community members take their role in shaping HoS governance. I’m genuinely grateful, it’s clear we have a community that cares, and that’s exactly what makes HoS’ governance model work. Kudos to all of you.

What we’re preparing next

We’ll come back in early January with:

• Constitution (feedback period)
• Mission, Vision, Values (decision vote or feedback period, updated version)
• Screening Committee Charter (feedback period)
• Endorsed Delegate Charter (feedback period)
• Proposal Process (feedback period)
• Code of Conduct (sensing vote or feedback period)
• Conflict of Interest Policy (feedback period, updated version)

Thanks for your patience, we’re close, and we’ll get this over the finish line together!

Love this style of communications and updates on the status of everything! I’m looking forward to January (and 2026), since it’s going to be busy, and it will really kick start HoS towards great success!

Gm, @AK_HoG and Happy New Year to you and the HoS!

Do you know if the governance security updates and audit have been completed on Agora, so we can move forward for a decision vote on the MVV? Tks!

GM @coffee-crusher and everyone. Happy New Year!

We’ve just shipped the supermajority to production and are now ready to move forward with voting on the constitutional documents.
Huge kudos to @jefag (Agora) and Alex/Sean (Valhalla) for pushing this through over the festive season!

What’s next: We’ll be sharing the first two updated docs, Constitution and Proposal Process, this week to kick off forum discussions for ratification. Atm, we’re aligning with the Screening Committee and Security Council on process and feedback cycles. Stay tuned!

Thank you so much for the updates! It’s going to be a busy January, but really exciting for getting the HoS truly live. Tks!

Hi everyone, I promised I’d publish the first two constitutional doc drafts by today!
Turns out we won’t quite make that deadline.

Here’s why:
The HoS constitutional docs can’t be written in a vacuum. They need to line up with the House of Stake Foundation’s Memorandum, Articles, Bylaws, and standard legal practice. We spent the past week working through open questions with NF Legal and made good progress, but a few things are still open.

Bianca/NF Legal (who’s been doing a great job supporting this work) is OOO next week, so we’ll pick this back up properly once she’s back. Huge thanks as well to @HumbertoBesso , @juankbell , and the whole Hack Humanity team for pushing the drafts forward (including late-night work).

What’s next:
I’ll use the weekend to figure out how we can keep momentum and move parts of this forward, even without the final drafts published yet. There’s a lot on our plate this year, and while I hate losing time, I’m confident we’re setting this up the right way.

I’ll share an update next week. Thanks for sticking with us and staying engaged!

Thank you so much, @AK_HoG for the update, and the delays make sense regarding the order of the votes and the drafts.

Could there some other organizational things (that are not dependant upon the docs) such up setting up regular (weekly, bi-monthly or even monthly) gov calls - similar to what you held in late Nov/early Dec, or organizing/cleaning up the Forum categories?

Thanks for the ping - and yes, both makes a lot of sense.
We’ll run community calls in January to discuss the Constitutional Docs.

GM HoS - Key Principles for HoS Constitutional Documents and our Roadmap 2026
on Thursday, Jan 15, 2026
at 7pm UTC

Google Meet: Online Web and Video Conferencing Calls | Google Workspace

Use Google Meet for secure online web conferencing calls and video chat as a part of Google Workspace.

Read more here: Key Principles for HoS Constitutional Documents and our Roadmap in 2026

See you there!

Hi all,
Today we’re kicking off the ratification process for House of Stake’s new constitutional documents.
We’ll begin with:

• Constitution (replacing the Interim Constitution)
• Proposal and Voting Procedures (a dedicated policy for proposals and voting)
• Screening Committee Charter (a dedicated policy for the Screening Committee)

Today’s community call will be dedicated to introducing these documents. We’ll walk through the key changes compared to the current versions and explain the reasoning behind their structure and design.
Join us!

GM HoS - Constitutional Docs at HoS
on Thursday, Jan 29, 2026
at 7pm UTC
https://meet.google.com/ydx-tsrh-yih

Conflicts of interest have been widely discussed at HoS and across many DAOs. Our next GM HoS Community Call on February 12 will be dedicated entirely to this topic.

We’ll walk through the new COI policy, review its foundations, and discuss the HoS approach in detail. Join us with your questions, comments, and perspectives.

Join us on February 12 at 7 PM UTC
Link: Join on Google Meet

Update: Constitutional Documents Moving to Vote

Hi everyone,

Quick update on the Constitutional Documents process
We’re submitting the full set to the Screening Committee for review this week. Once that review is complete, we’ll move forward with a community vote.

What we’ve been working on since December 2025

Since December, we’ve focused on turning the initial constitutional direction into a clear and workable framework.

Over the past months, we have:

• Published draft documents and opened them for community discussion

• Incorporated substantial feedback from governance contributors, ecosystem participants, and the NEAR Foundation and House of Stake Foundation directors

• Implemented the supermajority voting mechanism

• Aligned terminology and cross-references across documents

• Pressure-tested the framework to ensure it works in practice, not just in theory

• Hosted several GM HoS Community Calls to walk through new versions of the documents and gather live feedback

This has been an iterative process, and each HSP document includes a changelog documenting that evolution.

One bundle, one vote

Because the documents are closely interconnected and reference one another, we’ll bring them forward as one bundle for ratification.

The following policies will be included in the single ratification vote:

1. Constitution
2. Proposal and Voting Procedures
3. Screening Committee Charter
4. Mission, Vision, Values
5. Conflicts of Interest Policy
6. Code of Conduct

Endorsed Delegates Charter

The Endorsed Delegates Charter will not be part of this vote.
We’ve decided to first redesign and update the program based on what we’ve learned and where we want to take it next. Once finalized, the revised policy will be brought forward for ratification.

Why this matters

This set of documents gives us clarity as we move into 2026 and continue taking responsibility in the best interest of NEAR.

It will replace the respective interim versions, so we have a stable foundation to build on before those interim documents expire.

We’ll share the voting link here as soon as the Screening Committee completes its review and voting opens.

Thanks to everyone who’s contributed so far.
Now, get ready to vote, everyone!

Update:

Hack Humanity has received and thanks the Screening Committee for its review of the House of Stake Constitutional Documents bundle being put up for vote.

The Screening Committee Review and recommendation to change the voting threshold from Supermajority to Simple majority can be found here:

As proposal authors, our original submission specified a supermajority requirement, reflecting our intention to ratify these Constitutional Documents with broad alignment across the ecosystem.

Before proceeding with the recommendation, we conducted a risk assessment and consulted governance and legal stakeholders to evaluate the implications of adjusting the threshold.
This process highlighted several governance and reputational considerations that must be handled carefully in a decentralized environment.

Taking these factors into account, and recognizing the context outlined by the Screening Committee and a conversation with the Head of Governance, Hack Humanity will proceed with the recommended approach, updating the proposals on the Forum and GitHub to Simple majority accordingly, and submitting on the voting platform.

Thanks, Hack Humanity, for the update and for taking the Screening Committee’s feedback on board.

I’d like to add a bit more context on why this decision was made.

Opening the Constitutional Vote – and Why We’re Using a Simple Majority

Over the past months, the House of Stake Constitutional Documents have gone through extensive drafting, public discussion, and formal review.

The Screening Committee has now completed its review and made one important recommendation:
Given the current concentration of voting power at HoS, the ratification vote should use a simple majority, not a supermajority as originally planned. Here’s why.

The Current Reality of Voting Power at HoS

Today, voting power at House of Stake remains highly concentrated.

Screenshot 2026-03-10 at 19.39.181612×972 130 KB

• The 3 largest delegates collectively hold approximately 34.6% of voting power
• Several combinations among the 5 largest delegates exceed 33.33%
• see HoS Voting Power Dashboard
  

Under a ⅔ supermajority threshold, just three large voters can block ratification, no matter what the other 400 delegates believe is right.

Why a Supermajority Is Risky in the Current Distribution

Supermajorities are meant to protect foundational rules and require broad support. But when voting power is concentrated, they also amplify veto power.

In simple terms:

• Under supermajority, large holders cannot easily push something through alone if everyone else disagrees.
• But they can block it if they vote no

• Supermajority under these conditions does not measure broad consensus, it measures whether the largest holders choose not to block.

That imbalance creates risk, especially for something as foundational as constitutional ratification.

If you’re interested in the formal mechanics, see the technical appendix below.

What the Simple Majority Decision Protects

• Democratic legitimacy under current conditions. Simple majority ensures the outcome reflects the wider delegate base, not whale veto. This will be even more the case if the Documents are passed with a large majority.
• Governance continuity. The Interim Constitution expires end of May 2026. With the Citizens House vote passed, HoS will soon have an active treasury. If ratification is blocked, we risk governance uncertainty, stalled proposals, and unnecessary deadlock, right when momentum is building.
• Community co-creation. These documents are the product of extensive public discussion since October 2025, structured community feedback, co-creation cycles, and legal alignment with the HoS Foundation.
• House of Stake Exercising its Mandate. Under Article 5.1 of the PVP, the Foundation could establish these documents without any vote. It chose to seek tokenholder consent.

Why Not Remove Supermajority Altogether?

Supermajority remains the defined threshold for constitutional amendments. We are not removing it. Instead, we are making a pragmatic adjustment for this specific ratification vote due to current voting power concentration.

We still think, supermajority for constitutional amendments is the right approach going forward, because

1. It encourages broad ecosystem alignment on foundational decisions
2. Pushes us aim for a healthier voting power distribution

As voting power becomes more distributed, supermajority becomes safer and more appropriate. Using a simple majority for this ratification is not lowering standards, it is protecting progress under present conditions.

A Governance Step Forward

This decision reflects the principle we’ve consistently upheld:

Avoid governance debt.
Acknowledge reality.
Design mechanisms that work in practice.

This vote matters. And now more than ever, your participation matters.

The vote opens in the coming days.
Whether you hold a lot of voting power or a little: your vote counts.

Let’s ratify the foundations and keep building.

Appendix A

Example case: Three voters with very unequal weights in a ⅔ supermajority vote.

• A = 60

• B = 25

• C = 15

• Total = 100

Compute Winning Coalitions:

Coalition	Weight	Wins?	Critical players
{A}	60		—
{B}	25		—
{C}	15		—
{A,B}	85		A and B are both critical
{A,C}	75		A and C are both critical
{B,C}	40		—
{A,B,C}	100		A is critical

Interpretation:

• Supermajority reduces A from total control.
• But A becomes a veto player: every winning coalition includes A (because B+C=40 can never reach 67)
• B and C gain some power, but only by being “the extra votes” that push A over the threshold in 2-person coalitions
• If you are interested to learn more about measuring veto power, check out the Banzhaf Power index.

Appendix B: Structural Safeguards Against Precedent

Supermajority stays in place for amendments.
The ratified documents still require a ⅔ supermajority to change the constitutional framework after it’s approved. The current voting mechanism applies only to this specific vote, it does not set a precedent for future constitutional changes.

The classification is based on verifiable facts.
Voting power concentration data is public. Future Screening Committees will assess proposals based on the conditions at that time. If voting power becomes less concentrated, the argument for using a simple majority no longer applies.