Cohort Feedback Report

What the first SPO Academy cohort told us, and where each item came from.

note

Final, compiled 27 October 2026. The feedback form opened in the session 3 call on 19 October and closed after the final session on 26 October. Three of nine enrolled participants responded in writing, all three consenting to be quoted by name and pool ticker. The live-session record and the cohort Discord carry the rest.

The companion document is Improvements and Action Plan, which is where each item below gets an owner and a date.

How feedback was collected

Channel	What it captures
Live sessions	Questions and objections raised on the call, written into each session summary the same week
Cohort Discord #spo-academy	Day to day friction, raised as it happens
Written form	Seven open questions plus a quoting-consent item, issued in the session 3 call, in Discord, and by email to the cohort list
Andamio platform	What participants got stuck on when submitting assignments

The form carries no satisfaction score. A number out of ten cannot be turned into a change to the course. Every question is optional, and nothing is attributed without the respondent's recorded consent.

What we heard

1. Not enough worked SPO examples, too many overlapping frameworks

The single clearest theme, raised independently by two of the three respondents.

The less valuable parts so far have been where similar concepts are explained through several overlapping frameworks without enough practical SPO examples. The theory is interesting, but sometimes I would prefer to spend more time applying it to a real pool.

RCADA

The specific ask is a complete worked example of an SPO business model with realistic staking income, operating costs, relationships, capabilities and additional revenue opportunities, and a route from the frameworks to a manageable set of priorities and measurable outcomes.

A third respondent made the positive version of the same point, that the examples which do exist are what made the material land.

2. The material repeats itself, and runs past what the assignment needs

It feels repetitive in parts, so bits I'm sure I've already read or watched pop up later in the same module. If I didn't know any better, I would have said it was produced with AI.

Mark Venables, VSPBM

Sometimes the written material went beyond what was required for the assignments.

Chris, STR8

Both are about the Andamio course content rather than the live sessions, and both point the same way: the modules carry more words than the work needs.

3. Live sessions should be application, not a repeat of the self-paced material

Two respondents, independently. The preference is for the live hour to be spent on worked examples, discussion and questions, including how different operators apply the same framework, with the reading done beforehand. One respondent also noted they would rather contribute in writing than be asked to speak on the call, which the course should accommodate rather than treat as non-participation.

The verbal round in the final session qualified this rather than contradicting it. Several operators said the live hour mattered for motivation and for sharpening their thinking, even though the course is designed to stand alone. The ask is not fewer live sessions. It is that the live hour earns its place by doing something the material cannot.

4. The live sessions implied a pace the course does not set

I ended up completing four modules in the final week, which suggests that clearer milestones or guidance on pacing would have helped.

Chris, STR8

The course is self-paced by design, and that stays. What the live series added was a fixed calendar alongside it, which reads as a deadline even though no deadline exists. The ask is not for the course to set a schedule, it is for enough signposting that a participant can judge where they want to be before each session.

5. Module 300 carries too much at once

Module 300 could benefit most from more structure, it felt a bit overloaded.

Chris, STR8

A different respondent named the Purpose and Essence work in 300 as one of the most valuable parts of the course. The signal is not that 300 is wrong, it is that 300 is dense. Restructure it, do not cut it.

6. Production quality of the recorded material

Four specific, fixable items, all from one respondent and all independently verifiable:

Observed	Where
Sound quality in the video recordings could be better	Form, 26 Oct
Narration is spoken too fast to follow without re-reading the text afterwards	Form, 26 Oct
Module 503 material has very low contrast	Form, 26 Oct
Module 100 images are oversized; clickable thumbnails opening at full resolution would be better	Form, 26 Oct

Also raised: cross-references to other modules are written as bare module numbers, for example "Module 502", where a direct hyperlink would do the job.

7. Andamio platform friction

Five distinct items, all from participants rather than from us:

Observed	Where
Andamio does not state the ADA required to make a submission, so participants have to guess	Form, 19 Oct
Module 000 appears stuck, and a participant cannot see what they submitted	Form, 19 Oct
No resume: finishing a module forces navigation back out to All Courses to pick up the next	Form, 22 Oct
Wallet funding and hardware-wallet signing failed initially, later resolved	Form, 26 Oct
Access token minting, wallet connection and collateral caused difficulty	Session 1, 28 Sep

8. What is working, and should not be changed

• The assignments. Praised for forcing the ideas to be distilled and made specific to the participant's own pool.
• The Playbook Builder. Called an excellent idea for scaffolding, and separately "very convenient and worked really well", specifically for copying the output out in one click without having to handle Markdown.
• The Full Value Audit (200) and the Purpose, Essence and Value Model work (300). Named as the most valuable part of the course.
• Module 700 as the synthesis. Described as "a nice highlight combining all the other assets into one plan". The course's closing module does the job it was designed to do.

9. Asked for and not currently present

A SWOT analysis exercise, or a Business Model Canvas, as a visual one-page summary of the business the participant has just built. Raised in the form and again in the final session, where the ask broadened to interactive PESTEL and Ikigai exercises.

10. Raised in the final session

The last live session was given over to the cohort. Four things came back that the written form had not surfaced:

• Navigation and context. The modular structure makes sense, but it is hard to see how each piece connects to the end goal, and lessons are hard to refer back to while working on an assignment.
• More visual and interactive tools. The Playbook Builder was the reference point for what participants want more of.
• A credentials package. Operators want a logbook they can put in front of partners and funders, rather than a credential that only exists inside the platform.
• The live hour has value of its own, for motivation as much as for content.

Source: session 4 write-up. Nothing on that page is attributed to a named participant.

Outcome questions

All three respondents said the plan they are building is one they would actually use. One has started an evolving SPO Playbook applying the course to their own pool. One stated plainly that they will execute on the plan.

Asked in the final session what the course had changed for them, the answers were: seeing the gaps in how a pool measures the value it creates; the difference between a pool's philosophy and the systems that run it, and that a plan only counts once implemented; thinking of a stake pool as an organism rather than a machine; the pool's financial gaps and the different types of delegator it serves; and, for a five-year operator, the personal development the work has brought, which the course helped put into words.

All three form respondents reported a change in how they think about operating, unprompted:

Previously, it was easy to focus on increasing delegation, producing blocks and maintaining reliable infrastructure. Those things remain important, but I'm increasingly viewing delegation growth as a possible outcome of creating meaningful value rather than the primary reason for operating the pool.

RCADA

It has given me a sense of urgency about how I can at least make a stand for the blockchain and what my value and worth is.

Mark Venables, VSPBM

It helped me organise my thinking and identify an additional near-term priority that I hadn't yet turned into an action plan.

Chris, STR8

In their own words, asked how they would describe the course to another operator:

Well worth the time to take stock of your pool and to work out where you want to take it and yourself next.

Mark Venables, VSPBM

It's a business strategy course that challenges you to think about your stake pool as more than a server earning staking rewards.

RCADA

This course helps you review your pool business in a structured way, refine your thinking and potentially identify gaps or opportunities you hadn't considered before.

Chris, STR8

Feedback already acted on before the form closed

Raised during the run and changed before the course ended:

Raised	Where	Action taken
Access token minting, wallet connection and collateral caused difficulty	Session 1, 28 Sep	Worked through live, help offered in the channel, token cost refunded
Session 2 slot clashed with participant travel	Discord poll, early Oct	Sessions 2 to 4 moved back a week
Module numbers appearing inline confuse people before the Andamio structure is explained	Session 2, 12 Oct	Pulled back to the module overview table only
The ADA cost of a submission is not shown by the platform	Form, 19 Oct	Stated in the cohort channel and added to the onboarding material

On the response rate

Three of nine enrolled participants completed the form, all three at length and all three consenting to be quoted by name and ticker. The form was issued in the session 3 call on 19 October, in the cohort Discord, by email on 24 October, and again at the final session.

Three written responses is a small sample, and does not speak for the cohort as a whole. The three agree with each other on the two main themes without having seen each other's answers, and they are specific enough to act on. Every item in the action plan traces to a sentence someone wrote.