For protocol teams & DAOs

Two workflows for explaining onchain activity and welcoming contributors, with references for public coordination.

2 workflows
17 references
Evidence · Governance · Contribution

Practical workflows

Start with the work

Each workflow defines the starting point, steps, completion test, and the specific role of every linked resource.

Starting point: You have a defined protocol, chain, period, and a question about activity.
What you need: Required: a relevant data source, its definitions, and a document for the report. Use the explorer and datasets for the actual chain. This is a reporting exercise, not a trading signal.

Steps

Define the measure and comparison
Name the chain, contracts or addresses, time window, timezone, and metric. Explain what is counted and excluded. Choose comparable periods before looking for an attractive result.
Record a reproducible source
Save the query or explorer URL, retrieval time, and definitions. Check coverage, indexing delays, and whether the query includes the intended contracts. A public dashboard is a starting source to inspect, not automatic evidence of correctness.
Check what the numbers mean
Inspect a sample of underlying transactions and check units. Distinguish addresses from people and transactions from meaningful usage. Consider contract changes, incentives, or missing data before attributing a change to the product.
Publish the finding with its limits
Write the observation, a cautious interpretation, and what remains unknown. Link the source and date the update. Ask a contributor to reproduce the central result and record a correction if the underlying data changes.

The role of each resource

These are options for a specific role; you do not need to adopt all of them.

When it is done

A reader can identify the time period, understand the metric, inspect the source, and see what conclusions the evidence does not support.

Teaching example

Addresses are not people

Fictional reporting example; no live protocol figures are represented.

Observation	Unsupported leap	Useful qualification
The query finds more active addresses in the selected period.	“The protocol gained the same number of new users.”	One person may control several addresses, and automated activity may be present.

Report the measure the query actually computes. Explain how it differs from the behavior you want to understand.

Checklist and template

Explain protocol activity with evidence

[ ] Define chain, contracts, period, and metric.
[ ] Save the source, retrieval time, and coverage notes.
[ ] Check units and sample underlying transactions.
[ ] Separate observations, interpretation, and unknowns.
[ ] Have another reader reproduce the central finding.

Question / protocol / chain:
Period / timezone / comparison:
Contracts or addresses:
Metric definition / exclusions:
Query or explorer URL:
Retrieved at:
Coverage / indexing limitations:
Observation:
Interpretation:
Alternative explanations:
What this cannot establish:
Reviewer / reproduction note:
Correction history:

Starting point: The team has a real task suitable for a new contributor and someone available to review it.
What you need: Required: a task description, a contact, and access to the relevant documentation. Public contribution should not require private account keys or unrelated permissions.

Steps

Choose a bounded first task
Describe the problem, expected result, existing context, and acceptance criteria. Identify anything that is explicitly outside the task. Clarify compensation or volunteer status before work begins.
Provide only the necessary access
Link the relevant guide, working location, and review process. Start with public material or the least access that permits the task. Explain how to report an access problem without sharing secrets.
Name a contact and a review route
Identify the person responsible for answering questions and the place to submit work. Say what a useful submission contains, such as a proposed change, supporting evidence, and anything still uncertain.
Review the work and repair the instructions
Compare the submission with the acceptance criteria and give specific feedback. Ask what was confusing during the first task. Update the guide, confirm the task’s status, and offer a next contribution only when it is appropriate.

The role of each resource

These are options for a specific role; you do not need to adopt all of them.

When it is done

The contributor knows what to deliver, where to ask, and how review works; the first submission receives a clear response.

Teaching example

A first documentation task

Fictional onboarding example.

Task	Acceptance	Review
Clarify one confusing setup instruction.	Describe the missing step and verify the revised instruction on the stated setup.	Submit the proposed text and verification note to the named reviewer.

A small task with a real reviewer teaches the contribution process more clearly than a long list of channels.

Checklist and template

Welcome a new contributor

[ ] Write the first task and its acceptance criteria.
[ ] Clarify compensation, scope, and necessary access.
[ ] Name a contact and submission location.
[ ] Review against the criteria and give specific feedback.
[ ] Improve the guide using the contributor’s questions.

Task / intended result:
Relevant context and links:
Acceptance criteria:
Out of scope:
Compensation or volunteer terms:
Necessary access:
Contact / questions channel:
Submission location and format:
Review owner / expected response date:
Result / feedback:
Instructions to improve:

Using the folder

Protocol teams

Protocol work depends on legible evidence and contribution paths. These workflows help a team document what chain data can support and give a new contributor a bounded first task.

What it helps improve

Define onchain measures before interpreting them.
Make sources, limits, and corrections visible.
Give contributors a bounded task and a named review route.

Where to start

Use the reporting workflow for a dated public claim and the contributor workflow for a real first task. The linked resources support those jobs; they do not replace protocol-specific documentation or review.

Selected references

Resources in this folder

These references are here because they have a defined role in the workflows above. Browse by format when you already know which part of the work you need to solve.