Analyst & Author: Ella Dane (Ella Dane#0382)
Date of survey: July 6, 2022
Date of publication: July 13, 2022
Previous Surveys can be found in this table [link forthcoming; the page was inadvertently deleted]
This analysis pertains to the survey of BanklessDAO members taken during the Coordinape period ending July 6, sampling 101 Guest Pass holders, 69 L1 contributors, and 83 L2 contributors for a total sample size of 253 members.
** see bottom of document for explanation about Community Net Promoter Scores
We measured the community’s satisfaction with BanklessDAO and achieved a Community Net Promoter Score (”cNPS”) of 40, a 15 point decrease from the June score and an all-time low.
Satisfaction is down, especially among the L1s, and the reason is not yet apparent.
We achieved a cNPS of 40, a solid score by any measure, and yet this month’s score brings us to an all-time low since we began tracking it in November ‘21.
A total of 253 bDAO members responded to our survey, a decrease of 28 participants since the last survey (down 10%). Of these, a low number (39 of 253) were counted as Detractors.
A quick analysis indicates that Guest Pass showed a decrease in satisfaction with the DAO, L1s indicated a plummeting decrease in satisfaction, and L2s experienced a slight decrease in satisfaction.
Our findings indicate that there is a material gap in cNPS between Guest Passes, L1s, & L2s.
All eight of the published sentiment analysis forum posts have focused on the praises and concerns of BanklessDAO community members toward the DAO. These are largely consistent from one analysis to the next. In this month’s Coordinape survey, members stated that they continue to be excited about the strong community, educational opportunities, permissionlessness, transparency, and mission of bDAO. The concerns focus mainly on tokenomics & compensation. These are strong recurring trends throughout the past several months.
To read more about these, please see past analyses here. [link forthcoming; the page was inadvertently deleted]
Today, however, we are focusing on one important finding.
Below is a graph depicting the cNPS of the bDAO community based on contributor level. It is evident that L1s have been coming in at the lowest cNPS ratings, and this month in particular, their score took a 34 point hit.
L1s are significantly less satisfied with the DAO than Guest Passes & L2s.
The Coordinape survey results do not contain data that suggests a clear reason as to why L1 satisfaction has dropped. The majority of L1 Detractors commented on tokenomics, compensation, market concerns, and a lack of organization and efficiency. These concerns are not different from those of Guest Passes and L2s, nor are they different from what we’ve heard in the past. There is simply a larger concentration of concerned members in the L1 group.
Thankfully, we added several quantitative questions about the impact of BANK prices to this month’s survey. We added these questions as a result of token price and compensation concerns that were so often cited in past surveys.
We asked two basic questions:
- How heavily do you rely on BANK to cover cost of living?
- How much does the value of BANK compensation influence your willingness to contribute to BanklessDAO?
And we reached a surprising conclusion.
Our hypothesis was that there would be a strong correlation between one’s reliance on BANK and one’s cNPS and one’s willingness to contribute.
This is not the case.
There is essentially zero correlation between their reliance on BANK to cover their cost of living and an individual’s cNPS score.
There is also very low correlation between an individual’s reliance on BANK to cover their cost of living and their willingness to contribute to bDAO.
And there is very low negative correlation between an individual’s cNPS score and their willingness to contribute to bDAO based on BANK compensation.
Perhaps what people say is actually true: “I’m here for the mission” plays out in the numbers. It seems to be proof that those that remain contributing to bDAO, while they may have their complaints, are here because they believe in their guilds, their projects and their peers. They are not here because of some mistaken “up only” ideology.
This is an incredible statement about bDAO.
For more information on correlations, click here.
Back to the problem of the L1s. Because cNPS is not correlated with monetary need or willingness to contribute (as mathematically shown above), the reduction in cNPS must be due to something else. The interesting thing is that the negative comments voiced in the Coordinape survey are primarily centered around BANK price concerns. But we’ve shown that BANK concerns and cNPS are not correlated. As BANK price is not the root of the issue, what is? And why are the L1s struggling the most?
I’m afraid I don’t have the answer. Yet.
Clearly, we have an issue on our hands: the cNPS for bDAO has taken a hit. We also have a mystery: it’s not at all clear why the L1s in particular are feeling so dissatisfied. This needs further investigation.
I’d like to come up with one to three questions to be answered in the next survey to better understand the root of the L1 satisfaction issue. I’ll be considering this in the weeks to come, so please throw suggestions in the comments.
I’d love to hear other questions for the community - throw them in the comments.
Unattributed NPS scoring sheet source is here
Confidential GUEST PASS responses here (restricted access)
Confidential LEVEL ONE responses here (restricted access)
Confidential LEVEL TWO responses here (restricted access)
Synthesis Scratch Pad here (restricted access)
The Net Promoter Score (NPS) is a well-regarded methodology for quantifying the whether a brand delivers on its promise. The standardized form of NPS reads as follows: “On a scale of 1-10, how likely would you recommend X to a friend or colleague?”
In our case, X = “working for BanklessDAO”
The results of an NPS survey can be quantified in a score that ranges from negative 100 to positive 100. Depending on the topic, brand, industry, etc., a “good” score can range anywhere from +0 to +40 and beyond.
Wikipedia discussion of NPS
Lattice discussion of eNPS
In our case, we are measuring “cNPS” which we cleverly coined to mean Community NPS. While there is no clear community standard yet, I believe cNPS relates closely to eNPS (Employee NPS). As for how to interpret the score, according to Jennifer Willy, Editor at Etia.com, “anything above zero is generally acceptable… Generally, a score between 10-30 is considered good while anything near 50 is excellent.”