Skip to main content

Monitoring

Design Note: Every contribution system needs transparent, reliable monitoring of member activity, task progress, and reward flows. Monitoring answers the questions: Who did what? Was it completed to standard? Was the contributor rewarded fairly?

In decentralized systems like Matou DAO, monitoring isn’t about surveillance or top-down control — it’s about visibility and accountability. Contributors, stewards, and the community must be able to see the full lifecycle of contributions: from proposal → assignment → completion → verification → reward. Monitoring also produces the data needed for learning and improvement, letting the DAO adapt over time.

Relevance to Contribution Systems:

  • Transparency: Builds trust by showing that rewards are tied to verified work.
  • Accountability: Deters free-riding and fraudulent claims.
  • Quality assurance: Ensures contributions meet required standards.
  • Data for governance: Provides evidence for adjusting reward rates, budgeting, and future planning.
  • Scalability: Enables large systems to manage complexity by making all activity auditable.

Matou DAO Implementation:

Membership:

  • All contributors are logged to the contributions registry.
  • Any member can view the registry of contribution histories.
  • Contributors earn reputation (CTR tokens) that reflects their verified contribution record.

Activity:

  • Every contribution entry shows: proposer, assignee, steward, status (draft/assigned/completed/verified), and reward allocations. See the (contribution schema)[../../technical/schemas/matou-contribution-schema] for more details.
  • Reviews are logged with comments so contributors understand how evaluations were made.
  • Peer monitoring is encouraged: contributors can leave feedback and comments on completed and active contributions, reinforcing collective oversight.

Technical:

  • Some Contribution events are logged on chain (creation, assignment, verification, payout).
  • Dashboards display live metrics: active contributions, completion rates, pending reviews, UTIL distributed, CTR earned.
  • Time-stamped activity trails ensure disputes can be resolved with verifiable records.

Cultural:

  • Monitoring also checks for cultural alignment — not just whether outputs are delivered, but whether they reflect community values.
  • Elders may review contribution logs to ensure activities respect community protocols.
  • Monitoring reports are shared in community gatherings for collective validation, not just technical review.

Operational:

  • Treasury stewards publish quarterly monitoring reports covering contribution activity, budget spent, UTIL flow, and CTR issuance.
  • Project stewards track nested contributions within larger projects, ensuring dependencies are monitored.
  • Contributors can view their personal dashboards showing all tasks, reviews, and tokens earned, reinforcing transparency.
  • Governance houses can use monitoring data for impact evaluation — e.g., identifying high-value contributions that justify future funding.