Season 1 · Community Survey · Results Report
What 75 builders told us about Season 1
A complete, anonymized read-out of the Season 1 community feedback survey. Every figure below is computed directly from the response file — closed questions as exact counts, open text as clearly-labeled theme frequencies. No respondent identities appear anywhere in this report.
The one-paragraph takeaway
Sentiment is strongly and consistently positive. Not one respondent scored the recommendation question below 5, and only a single person said the point system “needs improvement.” The friction people describe is almost entirely in build mechanics — the AI agent breaking working code, wallet / on-chain integration, AI-credit limits, merge gating, and the battery-and-data cost of running a node on a personal phone — not in whether the program is worth their time. The clear directive from the data: keep the loop, remove the friction.
Sentiment across the five rated questions
Exact response counts. Bars are scaled to all 75 responses, so non-answers are shown as the remainder.
Zero respondents chose the most negative option on clarity (“not clear”) or on continuing (“no”). The single negatives are: 1 “needs improvement” on transparency, and 1 “didn’t feel the vibe.”
Net Promoter Score
“How likely are you to recommend Season 2?” — 0 to 10. 72 respondents scored; 3 left it blank.
NPS = (51 promoters − 3 detractors) ÷ 72 × 100 = +66.7. Scores 0–4 received zero responses.
What held people back
Multi-select question. 66 of 75 answered; options are not mutually exclusive.
The 12 free-text notes are dominated by the cost of running a node on a personal phone — battery drain, mobile-data cost, device heat and wear, and the need for a stable connection.
Technical blockers while building
Open-text question. 54 of 75 answered. Themes are keyword-scanned — a response may count toward more than one.
What builders want next
Three separate open-text questions. The same four asks surface at the top of all three.
| Theme | Missing (n=52) | Would keep me (n=50) | Want in S2 (n=56) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docs / examples / templates | 10 | 10 | 4 |
| Wallet / on-chain tooling | 7 | 10 | 8 |
| Debugging / logs / error visibility | 16 | 6 | 2 |
| More credits / higher limits | 6 | 5 | 4 |
| Staging / preview / deploy | 7 | 2 | 2 |
| File / image upload | 4 | 1 | — |
Read across the rows: documentation/examples, native wallet & on-chain tooling, error/debugging visibility, and more AI credits are the consistent top asks regardless of how the question is framed.
Why people joined, and what to keep
Two open-text questions, keyword-scanned. Themes are not mutually exclusive.
Motivation leans toward curiosity and the technology over pure reward-seeking: 17 named points/rewards, versus 28 for learning and 32 for the crypto/Web3 angle. No respondent asked to remove a core activity — though several flagged voting as a drag on team speed in the pain-point question.
In their own words
Verbatim excerpts, anonymized — no handles, names, or identifying references. Lightly trimmed for length.
“Was stuck when the bot couldn’t update or fix errors. It would often fix something that would break something else.”
“Wallet or on-chain feature make us stuck! And push us to create dummy integration — the AI implemented EVM instead [of] the native chain.”
“The biggest challenge was the limited AI API credits, which restricted development, testing, and iteration.”
“Voting is definitely slowing the whole process… syncing everybody in different time zones could be challenging.”
“The biggest pain point was waiting for manual PR approvals and opaque scoring updates.”
“Running the node continuously consumed a significant amount of battery and mobile data… I had to limit my participation.”
“The most valuable part was gaining practical experience building a real dApp… It helped me become more confident in Web3 development.”
“A modern blockchain project that aims to be accessible to anyone.”
What the evidence points to
Observations that follow directly from the numbers above — stated as the survey supports them, no further inference.
Strong pull, low risk of churn
NPS +66.7, 81% found building useful, 71% will “absolutely” continue, and there are effectively no detractors on any closed question.
Clarity is good, not solved
63% found points completely clear, but 25 said “somewhat,” and open text repeatedly asks for point breakdowns, real-time sync, and less opaque scoring.
Friction is in the build, not the program
The top blockers are agent errors, wallet / on-chain integration, AI-credit limits, and merge gating — build mechanics, not whether Season 1 was worth the time.
A clear Season 2 backlog
Docs & examples, native wallet / on-chain tooling, error & debugging visibility, and more AI credits are the consistent top asks across every framing of the question.