Data Collection Protocol_Antonia Damvakeraki_AGORA DC Network

1 Data Collection Protocol for “Standardizing DAO Governance: Frameworks for Interoperability and Democratic Legitimacy in Metaverse Ecosystems” This document represents the Data Collection Protocol for Antonia Damvakeraki’s research on Standardizing DAO Governance: Frameworks for Interoperability and Democratic Legitimacy in Metaverse Ecosystems Antonia Damvakeraki – DC1 School of Business University of Nicosia Project Information: AGORA Doctoral Network HORIZON-MSCA-2022-DN-01 Grant Agreement No. 101119937 Version 1.0 November 13, 2025 This project has received funding from the Horizon Europe Doctoral Networks programme under grant agreement No. 101119937 2 Table of Contents 1. Purpose and Scope........................................................................................ 3 2. Overview of Tools .......................................................................................... 3 2.1 Semi-structured Interview Guide for qualitative data collection (Expert/ Stakeholder focus) ................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Questionnaire for Online Survey (User/ Community Focus) ...................... 4 3. Sampling and recruitment .......................................................................... 5 4. Timeplan ......................................................................................................... 5 5. Ethics and Data Protection ......................................................................... 6 6. Management of Data &Documents ............................................................ 7 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 8 APPENDIX A – SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE ................................. 9 APPENDIX B – QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ONLINE SURVEY ................................. 15 3 1. Purpose and Scope This Data Collection Protocol defines the systematic approach for gathering empirical data to investigate the standardization of Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) governance, the interoperability of DAO mechanisms, and the democratic legitimacy of decision-making processes within metaverse ecosystems. The protocol supports the doctoral research project "Standardizing DAO Governance: Frameworks for Interoperability and Democratic Legitimacy in Metaverse Ecosystems" conducted by Antonia Damvakeraki within the AGORA Doctoral Network framework [Grant Agreement No. 101119937]. The proposed strategy for data collection employs a mixed-methods approach, integrating qualitative insights from industry experts, DAO participants, and policymakers with quantitative metrics from user and community experiences. Through semi-structured expert interviews, the research aims to capture various perspectives on governance challenges, mechanisms, and potential improvements. To compliment the qualitative data, a structured questionnaire addressed to metaverse users and DAO participants will be utilized to provide quantitative measures of attitudes, experiences, and perceptions related to standardization, interoperability, and democratic legitimacy in DAO governance. This mixed-method approach aims to address the core research objectives of understanding current DAO governance practices, identifying challenges related to interoperability and legitimacy, and proposing frameworks for standardization within metaverse environments. The proposed protocol aims to ensure systematic data collection that will enable evidence-based analysis of how governance structures influence participation, fairness, and overall ecosystem viability and sustainability in virtual worlds. 2. Overview of Tools The data collection framework employs two complementary research instruments designed to capture both expert/stakeholder and user/community perspectives of DAO governance in the metaverse. This method ensures comprehensive coverage of the governance ecosystem while maintaining feasibility within the doctoral research timeline. 2.1 Semi-structured Interview Guide for qualitative data collection (Expert/ Stakeholder focus) Purpose: The semi-structured expert interview aims to explore participants' perceptions, experiences, and critiques related to DAO governance standardization, interoperability, and democratic legitimacy in virtual environments. This qualitative component provides contextual depth regarding governance models, inclusion practices, cross-platform coordination, and future outlooks that quantitative methods alone cannot capture. Participant Profile: The interviews target DAO developers, governance experts, metaverse platform users, and policymakers who possess experience in or knowledge of metaverse and/or DAO governance. Specifically, participants should be able to offer insights into technical aspects, community dynamics, or policy implications. Format and Duration: The interview will follow a semi-structured format lasting approximately 45-60 minutes. Interviews will be conducted online via video 4 conferencing platforms (e.g., Zoom, Microsoft Teams, GoogleMeet, etc.) to accommodate participants from across the world. Each interview session will be recorded (audio only) with explicit consent (formally stated in the beginning of each interview but also in written format) and then transcribed verbatim to be used for the analysis. Core Topics:  Background and experience with DAOs or metaverse platforms.  General perceptions of governance challenges DAOs.  Decision-making models and voting mechanisms (e.g., token-weighted voting, alternative models).  Participation and engagement levels within DAO governance.  Democratic legitimacy, inclusion, and power dynamics (e.g., representation, exclusion, accountability).  Interoperability and cross-platform coordination challenges and solutions.  Need for and aspects of standardization in DAO governance.  Dispute resolution and accountability mechanisms.  Improvements, future frameworks, and the role of external governance/policy.  Cross-cultural and global considerations in DAO governance. 2.2 Questionnaire for Online Survey (User/ Community Focus) Purpose: The structured questionnaire will be used to quantify attitudes, experiences, and satisfaction levels regarding DAO governance among metaverse users and DAO participants. This tool will be used to help generate comparative metrics essential for understanding how governance mechanisms, standardization, and interoperability influence user experience, participation, and perceptions of legitimacy. Sample Size and Composition: The target sample comprises participants who have sufficient familiarity with the metaverse and some experience with DAO governance or related technical/policy aspects. Screening questions are included to ensure appropriate participant selection. A target sample size of approximately 20-50 participants is envisioned to allow for meaningful statistical analysis. Format and Structure: The questionnaire consists of screening questions, demographic and background items, Likert-scale questions (using a 1-5 scale for agreement), and open-ended questions for detailed feedback. The questionnaire will be deployed via an anonymous online survey platform (e.g., SurveyMonkey, Qualtrics, Google Forms) optimized for mobile and desktop completion and is designed to be completed within 10-15 minutes. Key Variables Measured: • Metaverse familiarity and engagement. • DAO experience (e.g., member, contributor, policymaker, no direct experience). • Demographics and background (e.g., age, gender, geographic region, education level, primary role in metaverse/DAO, years of experience, primary domain/platform). 5 • Attitudes on DAO governance in the metaverse, specifically: • Standardization and interoperability (e.g., common governance standards, standardized frameworks, interoperability challenges). • Democratic legitimacy and inclusion (e.g., fairness of decisions, influence of powerful stakeholders, inclusivity of processes, user voice, trust, transparency, personal inclusion). • Governance mechanisms and practices (e.g., token-weighted voting, alternative models, user-friendliness of tools, dispute resolution effectiveness, impact of technical design choices, overall satisfaction). • Open-ended feedback on biggest challenges, suggested improvements, personal experiences, and additional comments. 3. Sampling and recruitment The sampling strategy employs differentiated approaches appropriate to each instrument's objectives and target population characteristics. Expert Interview Sampling: Purposive sampling identifies expert participants based on specific criteria including their professional role (developer, governance expert, policymaker), experience with DAO governance, and engagement with metaverse platforms. Initial contact occurs through professional networks, academic collaborations, industry associations, and direct outreach to identified candidates. Snowballing effect might also be utilized. Selection prioritizes individuals who can provide strategic insights spanning technical, community, and policy dimensions of DAO governance. Questionnaire Participant Recruitment: Participants for the quantitative survey will be recruited through online channels relevant to metaverse and DAO communities. This includes sharing the survey link through relevant forums, social media groups, professional networks, and potentially direct outreach to known communities or platforms. The survey includes screening questions to ensure participants have a foundational understanding of the metaverse and DAO governance, ensuring the relevance of collected data. This opportunistic approach maximizes response rates while maintaining voluntary participation principles. In case there is no interest in the survey, the use of Prolific platform might be considered as an option. Demographic Information Collection: Both tools will be used to collect essential demographic and background data relevant to the research. This includes age range, gender identity, geographic region, education level, primary role within the metaverse/DAO space, years of experience with blockchain/metaverse/DAO, and primary platforms/DAOs of involvement. This profiling enables subgroup analysis and representativeness assessment without compromising participant anonymity. 4. Timeplan The data collection timeline aligns with the broader doctoral research schedule and case study implementation phases: Pilot Testing Phase (Q1 2026): • January 2026: Interview guide refinement and pilot interviews (1-2 experts). • February 2026: Questionnaire pre-testing with 10-15 participants. 6 • March 2026: Instrument revision based on pilot feedback. Main Data Collection Phase (April – June 2026): • April - May 2026: Expert interviews conducted and transcribed. • April – May 2026: Continuous questionnaire deployment and data collection. • June 2026 Data collection closure and preliminary analysis. Data Processing and Archiving (Q3 2026): • July 2026: Final data cleaning and anonymization. • August 2026: Dataset preparation for Zenodo deposition. • September 2026: Public release with DOI assignment. 5. Ethics and Data Protection This research adheres to the highest standards of research ethics and data protection as mandated by the AGORA Doctoral Network ethics framework and European Union regulations.  Ethics Approval: The data collection protocol will receive approval from the AGORA Ethics Committee following comprehensive review of the proposed research tools, consent procedures, and data management plans. The approval will on the one hand confirm compliance with Horizon Europe ethical requirements and institutional research governance standards on the other.  Informed Consent: All participants will provide explicit informed consent prior to data collection (in written format). The consent process will include comprehensive briefs, detailing research purposes, data usage, participant rights, and withdrawal procedures. For interview participants additional consent for audio recording and verbatim transcription will be requested. Consent forms will be kept separately from the research data collected through this process, to ensure confidentiality.  Data Anonymization and Pseudonymization: For the interview transcripts, special attention will be paid, for ensuring complete anonymization (i.e., with removal of any identifying information including names, organizations, and specific project references). For the survey data there will be pseudonymization through participant codes, that will allow potential longitudinal tracking while preventing individual identification. There will be no record of directly identifying information in the research dataset.  GDPR Compliance: For data processing, there will be full compliance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements (i.e., lawful basis documentation, data minimization principles, and participant rights implementation). Participants will retain rights to access, rectification, erasure, and data portability throughout the research conduction period [Information Commissioner's Office, 2018].  Secure Storage and Access Control: All data will be stored on encrypted, password-protected devices with backup on University of Nicosia secure servers. Access will be restricted to the principal researcher and authorized 7 supervisory team members. Cloud storage will utilize end-to-end encryption with two-factor authentication.  Data Retention and Disposal: Research data will be retained for three years following project completion (until August 2030, assuming project completion by August 2027 + 3 years) to enable verification, replication, and follow-up studies. After this retention period, data will be securely deleted using certified data destruction protocols. Anonymized datasets deposited in Zenodo will remain publicly accessible indefinitely under Creative Commons licensing. 6. Management of Data &Documents The data collection protocol establishes standardized file formats and organizational structures to ensure data integrity, accessibility, and long-term preservation. File Formats: • Research instruments: .pdf (final versions), .docx (working documents) • Survey data: .csv (raw data export), .xlsx (cleaned dataset with codebook) • Interview materials: .mp4 (audio recording), .txt (verbatim transcript), .docx (annotated transcript) • Documentation: .pdf (consent forms, information sheets, ethics approval) • Analysis outputs: .R or .py (analysis scripts), .html (reproducible reports) File Naming: All files will follow the standardized naming pattern: AGORA_DCno_[DocType]_[YYYYMMDD]_vX.X For example: AGORA_DC1_Interview_20250315_v1.0.txt or AGORA_DC1_Questionnai re_Clean_20251130_v1.0.xlsx Version Control: Document versioning tracks all modifications to instruments and protocols. Major revisions increment version numbers (v1.0, v2.0) while minor corrections will use decimal notation (v1.1, v1.2). Zenodo Deposition Strategy: This Data Collection Protocol represents the initial Zenodo deposition, establishing the methodological foundation for subsequent dataset releases. Future depositions will include: • Anonymized interview transcripts with thematic coding (separate DOI). • Cleaned survey dataset with comprehensive codebook (separate DOI). • Supplementary materials including instruments and consent forms (linked DOI). Each deposition will maintain bidirectional linking through related identifiers, creating a consistent research data ecosystem supporting transparency and reproducibility. 8 APPENDICES 9 APPENDIX A – SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE DAO Governance in the Metaverse - SemiStructured Interview Guide Student name: Damvakeraki Antonia Email: [email protected] Target Participants: DAO developers, governance experts, metaverse platform users, and policymakers (with experience in or knowledge of metaverse and/ or DAO governance). Objective: To explore participants’ perceptions, experiences, and critiques related to DAO governance standardization, interoperability, and democratic legitimacy in virtual environments. The interview covers topics including voting mechanisms, cross-platform coordination, user inclusion, decision-making models, token-based governance, and dispute resolution. Format: This is a semi-structured interview guide. It provides core questions on each topic, along with suggested prompts and follow-up questions to allow indepth responses. The phrasing may be adapted, and some questions may be skipped depending on the participant’s role (e.g. technical details with developers, policy implications with regulators, personal experiences with users). INTRODUCTION & CONTEXT Introductory Question: “To start, could you briefly describe your background and experience with DAOs or metaverse platforms?” Purpose: Warm up the interviewee. Understand their role (developer, user, policymaker, etc.), how they’ve engaged with DAOs or virtual worlds, and their level of experience. This helps tailor later questions to their context. Follow-up Prompts: If not already mentioned, ask: “How long have you been involved with blockchain or metaverse projects?” or “Can you share an example of a DAO or metaverse community you’ve been part of?” General Perceptions: “In your view, what are the biggest governance challenges that DAOs in the metaverse currently face?” Purpose: Identify the interviewee’s perspective on key issues upfront (e.g. low participation, power concentration, interoperability problems, etc.). This open question lets them raise any major themes before specific probing. Follow-up Prompts: “Why do you think these issues are the most pressing?” Encourage examples: “Can you describe a situation that highlights this challenge?” 16 o DAO Member – I have been or currently am a member of a DAO (e.g., as a token holder or community participant). o DAO Contributor/Builder – I have helped create or manage a DAO (e.g., a developer, founder, governance facilitator). o Researcher/Policymaker – I study or work on policy related to DAOs (or blockchain/metaverse governance) without being an active DAO member. o Other: ___ (please specify)___ Screening criterion: Ideally, respondents should select any option except “No direct experience.” If “No direct experience” is chosen, the survey may end, since the survey questions require some familiarity with DAO governance. 3. Knowledge Check: In your own words, briefly define what a DAO is or what it does. (Open-ended; a one-sentence answer is sufficient.) o [Text box] Rationale: This question checks basic understanding. (It won’t be scored as right or wrong, but nonsensical answers can indicate low familiarity.) Section 2: Demographics & Background These questions gather background information to contextualize responses. 4. Primary Role: Which of the following best describes your primary role or perspective regarding the metaverse/DAO space? o Developer / Technical – (software developer, smart contract engineer, platform architect, etc.) o DAO Core Contributor – (community manager, governance coordinator, project team member in a DAO) o Metaverse User/Participant – (regular user or community member in virtual platforms, not deeply involved in technical or governance roles) o Policy/Regulation – (government or organization role focusing on digital policy, blockchain/metaverse regulation) o Research/Academic – (studying these topics in an academic or institutional research setting) o Other: ___ (please specify)___ 5. Years of Experience: How many years of experience do you have in fields related to blockchain, metaverse, or DAO governance? o Less than 1 year o 1–2 years o 3–5 years 17 o 6–10 years o More than 10 years 6. Primary Domain or Platform: If applicable, please name the main metaverse platform(s) or DAO community(ies) you are involved with: o [Text box] (e.g., “Decentraland user and member of XX DAO,” or “Contribute to Ethereum core governance,” etc.) Note: If you’re involved in multiple, you may list more than one. If none specific, you can leave this blank. 7. Geographic Region: Which region do you primarily live/work in? o North America o Europe o Asia o South America o Africa o Oceania o Other / Prefer not to say 8. Highest Education Level: What is your highest completed education level? o High school or less o Some college / Associate degree o Bachelor’s degree o Master’s degree o Doctorate (PhD) o Other professional degree/certification o Prefer not to say (Questions 7 and 8 are optional demographic items that can be included if relevant to analysis of diversity; they can be omitted if not needed.) Section 3: Attitudes on DAO Governance in the Metaverse In this section, we ask for your opinions and experience regarding governance in metaverse DAOs. Please indicate your level of agreement or describe your experiences, as specified. 3.1 Standardization & Interoperability: The following statements relate to standardization of governance and interoperability across different metaverse platforms/DAOs. For each statement, select your level of agreement on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. (If you have no opinion or not sure, you may choose 3 = Neutral.) 18 • Q9. “The lack of common governance standards across different metaverse platforms is a problem that limits effective coordination.” (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) • Q10. “Establishing standardized governance frameworks (e.g. common rules or protocols) would benefit the metaverse ecosystem.” (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) • Q11. “It is currently difficult for DAOs on different platforms to interoperate or make joint decisions due to technological or policy incompatibilities.” (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) • Q12. “Each virtual community or platform should have the freedom to govern itself without imposed standards.” (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) This item is reverse-worded compared to Q10, to gauge preference for autonomy over standardization. • Q13. “I have personally experienced or observed challenges when trying to coordinate governance across two or more platforms or DAOs.” (1 – Strongly Disagree / No, never … 5 – Strongly Agree / Yes, significant challenges experienced) (If you have no such experience, you may select N/A.) 3.2 Democratic Legitimacy & Inclusion: The following statements relate to democratic governance, inclusion, and fairness within metaverse DAOs. Again, use a 1–5 scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) to indicate your opinion: • Q14. “Decisions in the DAO or metaverse communities I’m familiar with are made in a democratic and fair manner.” (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) • Q15. “In practice, most DAO governance is dominated by a few powerful stakeholders rather than being truly community-driven.” (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) • Q16. “The governance processes in the metaverse communities I know are inclusive of users with diverse backgrounds and skill levels.” (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) • Q17. “Members of the community have adequate opportunities to voice their opinions before important decisions are made.” (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) • Q18. “I trust that the outcomes of DAO votes reflect the true will of the community.” (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) • Q19. “There is sufficient transparency and accountability in how DAO decisions are made and implemented.” (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) • Q20. “I feel personally included and heard in the governance processes of the DAO/metaverse communities I belong to.” 19 (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) (If you are not directly in a community, you can answer based on one you are most familiar with, or skip if not applicable.) 3.3 Governance Mechanisms & Practices: The following statements focus on specific governance mechanisms (like voting systems, dispute resolution, and technical tools). Please rate your agreement on the 1–5 scale: • Q21. “Token-weighted voting (where influence is based on token ownership) is a fair and effective way to make decisions in a DAO.” (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) • Q22. “We need alternative models (such as one-person-one-vote, reputation-based voting, or delegated voting) to improve fairness in DAO governance.” (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) • Q23. “The tools and platforms for participating in DAO governance (e.g. voting interfaces, governance dApps, forums) are user-friendly and accessible to newcomers.” (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) • Q24. “Disputes or grievances in DAO communities are handled effectively through the existing processes.” (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) • Q25. “Having a formal dispute resolution mechanism (e.g., arbitration committee or protocol) is important for a metaverse DAO’s governance.” (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) • Q26. “Technical design choices (smart contracts, algorithms) of a DAO significantly impact the governance outcomes and who can participate.” (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) Example: A Strongly Agree might reflect that complex interfaces or gas fees hinder participation, etc. • Q27. “Overall, I am satisfied with how governance works in the metaverse DAO(s) I am involved in.” (1 – Strongly Disagree … 5 – Strongly Agree) Optional: If you have any other specific experience with governance tools or models (e.g., using a specific voting platform, experimenting with new governance models) you’d like to highlight, you can mention it here: • [Text box] (This is not a question but an optional prompt for additional comments on governance tools/practices.) Section 4: Open-Ended Questions Please answer the following questions in your own words. These open-response questions allow you to provide more detailed feedback or examples. You can write as little or as much as you wish. 28. Biggest Challenge: “In your opinion, what is the biggest challenge or weakness in current DAO governance within the metaverse, and why?” 20 • [Open text response] Tips: You might discuss issues like low participation, unequal power distribution, technical barriers, lack of standards, etc., and explain why it concerns you. 29. Improvements: “What changes or improvements would you suggest to enhance the democratic legitimacy of DAO governance in virtual environments?” • [Open text response] Consider: How to make governance more fair, inclusive, accountable, or effective. You can mention anything from introducing new voting mechanisms, better onboarding/education for users, cross-platform governance standards, policy interventions, to cultural changes in communities. 30. Personal Experience (Optional): “Please share any personal experience or specific example that greatly influenced your perspective on DAO governance in a metaverse context.” • [Open text response] For example: a scenario where a vote went well (or badly), a conflict and how it was resolved, an initiative to standardize or coordinate with another community, etc. Real anecdotes help illustrate the state of governance. 31. Additional Comments: “If there is anything else you’d like to add about DAO governance or your survey responses, please feel free to do so here.” • [Open text response] (This is a catch-all question – you can skip it if you have nothing further to add.) Thank You for completing the survey. Your insights are valuable and will contribute to our research on creating more interoperable and legitimate governance frameworks for the metaverse. If you have requested to receive results or a summary, we will contact you once the study is completed.