When I opted in to a survey for Google some years ago, the invitation came from a verifiable Google address, and had in its signature text a person's name and job title, which I was able to google for myself to verify her identity. It also came with an NDA for respondents to sign, another strong evidence of the legitimacy of the project. The incentive was significant and worthwhile, to me, and the specifics of the incentive and how and when it would be delivered were clearly outlined. All of this meant that I had no qualms about participating in the research. It was a very interesting project to be a part of.

When I worked in market research and the companies I worked for conducted incentivised online research, they always included contact and verification details to help potential respondents feel reassured that the survey was legitimate.

Your survey, in contrast, is anonymous then says, in effect, "I'd like to pay you to know more about you". This does not inspire confidence. Suspicion and reluctance are natural reactions in this context.

As for the technical issues I noted, they were minor. I felt that there could have been more "N/A" options, and better skip logic for a couple of questions that could have benefitted from such an option.