DAO Governance Satisfaction & Participation Survey
Measures member satisfaction with proposal processes, voting experience, and treasury transparency in decentralized communities. Designed to identify participation barriers, trust gaps, and priority improvements for governance leads.
샘플 질문
템플릿에 포함된 내용을 미리 확인해 보세요. 모든 질문은 설문 공개 전에 자유롭게 수정할 수 있습니다.
In the last 3 months, how often have you actively contributed to this community?
- Weekly or more
- About monthly
- A few times
- Not in the last 3 months
Thinking about proposals in the last 3 months, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statement: Proposals are clearly written and easy to understand.
In the last 3 months, did you vote on any proposals?
- Yes
- No
To what extent do you agree or disagree: Overall, treasury activity has been transparent in the last 3 months.
How much do you trust the overall governance process today?
Which roles do you identify with in this community? Select all that apply.
- Developer/Engineer
- Researcher/Analyst
- Delegate
- Token holder
- Contributor/Reviewer
- Community moderator/manager
- Operations/Project management
- Designer/UX
- Treasury/Finance
- Other (please specify)
Thank you for your time and insights! Your feedback will be used to improve community governance. Results will be shared in aggregate with the community.
Which types of contributions have you made in the last 3 months? Select all that apply.
- Code or technical work
- Proposal authoring
- Proposal feedback/discussion
- Voting participation
- Documentation or education
- Community moderation
- Design/UX
- Operations/project management
- Treasury/finance work
- Other (please specify)
There is enough time to review and discuss proposals before a vote is called.
How clear were the voting instructions and options in the last 3 months?
Have you read a treasury report or budget update in the last 3 months?
- Yes
- No
How likely are you to recommend participating in this community's governance to a peer?
How long have you been involved with this community?
- Under 3 months
- 3–12 months
- 1–2 years
- More than 2 years
What were the main reasons you have not contributed in the last 3 months? Select all that apply.
- Lack of time
- Unclear where to start
- I felt my input would not matter
- Too many proposals/threads to follow
- Discussions felt unwelcoming
- Other priorities outside the community
- Other (please specify)
Community feedback is meaningfully incorporated into proposals before they go to a vote.
How confident are you that your votes were recorded and counted correctly?
Treasury reports are easy to understand.
Based on your responses in this survey, please share any additional thoughts or suggestions for improving governance in this community.
Which region do you primarily participate from?
- Americas
- Europe / Middle East / Africa
- Asia-Pacific
- Prefer not to say
The proposal process is accessible to members regardless of technical expertise.
To what extent do you agree or disagree: I am satisfied with the fairness of recent voting outcomes.
Treasury reports are published frequently enough.
We'd like to learn more about your governance experience. An AI moderator will ask a couple of brief follow-up questions based on your earlier responses.
What is your primary language for community participation?
- English
- Spanish
- Chinese (Mandarin)
- Portuguese
- French
- Japanese
- Korean
- Russian
- Other
- Prefer not to say
What is the single most important change that would improve the proposal process in the next quarter?
What were the main reasons you did not vote in the last 3 months? Select all that apply.
- Missed the voting window
- Unclear process or tools
- Too many proposals to evaluate
- Low perceived impact of my vote
- Technical issues (wallet/app)
- Conflicts of interest concerns
- Other (please specify)
Treasury reports clearly link spending to approved proposals.
Are you currently a delegated voter (i.e., you vote on behalf of others)?
- Yes
- No
- Not sure
Please rank the following treasury transparency improvements from most to least important.
- More frequent updates
- Simpler summaries/visuals
- Deeper line-item detail
- Clearer links to approved proposals
- Independent audits/attestations
- Better notifications/alerts
포함된 기능
AI 후속 질문
정형화된 설문이 놓치는 세부 내용을, 주관식 답변에 맞춰 AI가 심층 질문으로 끌어냅니다.
주의력 확인 장치
성의 없는 답변과 저품질 응답자를 걸러내는 내장 안전장치입니다.
AI가 작성한 문안
문구, 질문 순서, 분기 로직까지 AI가 연구 목표에 맞춰 작성합니다.
자동 리포트
응답이 모이면 주요 주제, 인용문, 이해하기 쉬운 요약이 자동으로 작성됩니다.
다른 서비스와 비교
다른 설문 도구의 가장 유사한 템플릿을 검토했습니다. 그 도구들이 잘하는 점과, 이 템플릿이 한발 더 나아가는 지점을 정리했습니다.
이 템플릿을 선택하는 이유
- Purpose-built for DAO governance, not generic membership: dedicated blocks on proposal clarity, review time, and whether feedback is incorporated before a vote is called
- Covers the full governance funnel in one flow — contribution frequency and barriers, voting confidence and perceived fairness, and treasury report readability/frequency, ending with a ranking of treasury transparency improvements
- Includes an AI follow-up interview segment so members can explain in their own words why they didn't vote or contribute, going beyond fixed-choice barrier lists
- Transparent prompts and automated per-response quality scoring give governance leads an auditable, ready-to-share report rather than raw export data
QuestionPro
Non Profit Member Satisfaction Survey Questions + Sample Questionnaire TemplateThis is a sample-questionnaire guide for nonprofit membership organizations rather than a DAO- or web3-specific instrument, so proposal, voting, and treasury-transparency questions have to be built from scratch. It's a reasonable starting point for general member-satisfaction wording but not fielding-ready for decentralized governance out of the box.
잘하는 점
- Established survey platform with broad question-bank support for membership organizations
- Provides sample questionnaire text as a starting point rather than a blank page
- Applicable to general nonprofit/community contexts beyond a single use case
아쉬운 점
- Static question set with no adaptive AI follow-up to probe low satisfaction or non-participation answers
- No DAO-specific coverage of proposal process, on-chain voting confidence, or treasury reporting
- No published methodology for how responses are scored or synthesized into a report
Typeform
Member Satisfaction Survey TemplateA conversational, one-question-at-a-time member satisfaction template aimed at general membership communities rather than decentralized governance specifically. Good for a polished respondent experience, but it doesn't address proposal review time, vote-counting trust, or treasury transparency, so it would need heavy customization for a DAO context.
잘하는 점
- Clean, conversational form UI that's generally easy to complete on mobile
- Simple to duplicate and re-brand for a generic community membership survey
- Well-known platform with straightforward embedding/sharing options
아쉬운 점
- No adaptive AI interview or voice AI option — respondents get the same static question sequence regardless of answers
- No built-in items on proposal process, voting confidence, or treasury reporting specific to on-chain governance
- No automated per-response quality scoring or auto-generated analysis report
설문을 공개할 준비가 되셨나요?
이 템플릿을 편집기에서 열어 보세요. 첫 응답자가 보기 전에 모든 부분을 원하는 대로 바꿀 수 있습니다.