Quadratic Funding (QF) excels at democratizing influence and funding public goods by weighting votes based on the number of contributors, not just the size of their wallets. This reduces the power of large token whales. For example, Gitcoin Grants has distributed over $50M through QF rounds, demonstrating its effectiveness in funding a diverse array of projects like Ethereum core infrastructure and climate initiatives, where broad community support is more valuable than concentrated capital.
LABS
Comparisons
Quadratic Funding Distribution vs. One-Token-One-Vote Distribution
A technical analysis comparing Quadratic Funding's preference for broad-based support against One-Token-One-Vote's capital-weighted governance. This guide examines the core mechanisms, trade-offs in Sybil resistance and capital efficiency, and provides a decision framework for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Governance Dilemma
Choosing a governance model is a foundational decision that determines who holds power, how funds are allocated, and ultimately, the resilience of your protocol.
One-Token-One-Vote (OTOV) takes a different approach by aligning voting power directly with financial stake. This results in a trade-off: it provides clear skin-in-the-game incentives and is simpler to implement, but it can lead to plutocracy. Major protocols like Uniswap and Compound use OTOV, where a single entity with 10M tokens has 10,000 times the voting power of a holder with 1,000 tokens, directly linking governance control to economic investment.
The key trade-off: If your priority is decentralized, grassroots decision-making and funding allocation (e.g., for a public goods fund or community treasury), choose Quadratic Funding. If you prioritize capital efficiency, rapid execution, and clear stakeholder alignment (e.g., for a DeFi protocol's parameter adjustments), choose One-Token-One-Vote. The former optimizes for broad participation; the latter for decisive, economically-aligned action.
tldr-summary
Quadratic Funding vs. One-Token-One-Vote
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of two dominant governance funding models, highlighting their core strengths and ideal applications.
01
Quadratic Funding: For Grassroots & Diversity
Amplifies small contributions: Uses a matching pool to fund projects based on the number of unique contributors, not total capital. This matters for public goods funding (e.g., Gitcoin Grants) where broad community support is more valuable than a single whale's vote. It surfaces projects with high democratic legitimacy.
02
Quadratic Funding: The Sybil Attack Problem
Vulnerable to collusion: The model's strength is also its weakness. Bad actors can split capital across many fake identities (Sybils) to manipulate matching. This requires robust, often costly, identity verification layers (like BrightID, Proof of Humanity) to maintain integrity, adding complexity.
03
One-Token-One-Vote: For Capital Efficiency & Speed
Clear, predictable outcomes: Funding aligns directly with token-weighted stakes, as seen in Compound Grants or Uniswap Governance. This matters for protocol treasury management where large stakeholders' economic alignment is critical. Execution is simpler and less computationally intensive than QF.
04
One-Token-One-Vote: The Plutocracy Risk
Centralizes power: Funding decisions mirror token distribution, which is often highly concentrated. This can lead to whale dominance, where a few large holders dictate all outcomes, stifling innovation and underfunding niche but valuable community projects. It optimizes for capital, not consensus.
HEAD-TO-HEAD DISTRIBUTION MECHANISM COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Quadratic Funding vs. One-Token-One-Vote
Direct comparison of governance and funding allocation models for DAOs and public goods.
| Metric / Feature | Quadratic Funding (QF) | One-Token-One-Vote (1T1V) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Goal | Maximize democratic participation & public good matching | Align voting power with capital at risk |
Wealth Concentration Impact | Reduces via square root calculation | Directly proportional to token holdings |
Sybil Attack Resistance | Requires strong identity proof (e.g., Gitcoin Passport) | Inherently resistant via token cost |
Typical Use Case | Public goods funding rounds (e.g., Gitcoin Grants) | Protocol parameter governance (e.g., Uniswap, Compound) |
Voter Cost to Influence | Increases quadratically with desired influence | Increases linearly with desired influence |
Capital Efficiency for Matching | Leverages matching pools (e.g., CLR) | Uses direct treasury allocation |
Implementation Complexity | High (requires sybil defense, rounding) | Low (native to token-weighted voting) |
pros-cons-a
QF vs. 1T1V
Quadratic Funding: Pros and Cons
A technical breakdown of two dominant funding distribution models. Choose based on your protocol's goals for decentralization, capital efficiency, and community engagement.
01
QF: Democratizes Funding
Specific advantage: Amplifies small contributions via the quadratic formula, making many small donors as powerful as a single whale. This matters for public goods funding (e.g., Gitcoin Grants) where broad community sentiment, not capital concentration, should decide.
02
QF: Resists Sybil Attacks (with Proof)
Specific advantage: Requires robust sybil resistance (e.g., BrightID, Proof of Humanity) to maintain integrity. This matters for protocols where identity cost is high, but adds significant implementation complexity versus simple token checks.
03
1T1V: Capital-Efficient & Simple
Specific advantage: Directly aligns voting power with economic stake; one token equals one vote. This matters for DAO treasuries and protocol parameter votes (e.g., Uniswap, Compound) where stakeholders bearing financial risk should have proportional say.
04
1T1V: Predictable & Low-Overhead
Specific advantage: Eliminates complex matching pool calculations and sybil defense. This matters for high-frequency governance or budget allocation where execution speed and auditability are critical, though it risks plutocracy.
pros-cons-b
QUADRATIC FUNDING VS. ONE-TOKEN-ONE-VOTE
One-Token-One-Vote: Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison of two dominant governance models for treasury and grant distribution, highlighting key trade-offs in decentralization, efficiency, and security.
02
Quadratic Funding: Con - High Coordination & Cost
Specific disadvantage: Requires complex rounds, sybil resistance proofs (e.g., BrightID, Proof of Humanity), and active voter participation. This matters for protocols with limited operational bandwidth, as it introduces significant overhead versus a simple token vote. Matching pool funds must also be sourced and managed.
03
One-Token-One-Vote: Pro - Capital-Efficient & Predictable
Specific advantage: Directly aligns voting power with economic stake, creating clear, auditable outcomes. This matters for protocol parameter votes (e.g., Compound's interest rate model updates) and high-stakes treasury allocations where capital-at-risk should dictate control. Execution is simple and gas-efficient.
04
One-Token-One-Vote: Con - Whale Domination Risk
Specific disadvantage: Concentrates power in the hands of the largest token holders (whales, VCs, foundations), potentially sidelining the broader community. This matters for community-driven initiatives and ecosystem grants, where it can lead to plutocracy and reduce long-term network alignment and innovation.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model
Quadratic Funding for DAOs
Verdict: The superior model for community-driven, inclusive decision-making. Strengths: Mitigates whale dominance by squaring votes, aligning influence with the breadth of community support rather than capital concentration. Proven in Gitcoin Grants rounds for funding public goods, where it surfaces projects with wide, shallow support. Ideal for protocol treasury allocations, grant programs, and any initiative where broad consensus is more valuable than concentrated capital. Key Protocols: Gitcoin Grants, CLR.fund, Optimism's Retroactive Public Goods Funding.
One-Token-One-Vote for DAOs
Verdict: The standard for capital-efficient, high-stakes governance of core protocol parameters. Strengths: Provides clear, predictable voting power directly tied to economic stake. Essential for executing swift, decisive upgrades in DeFi protocols (e.g., adjusting interest rate models, fee switches) where voters bear direct financial consequences. Lower implementation complexity versus Quadratic Funding. Key Protocols: Uniswap, Compound, Aave, MakerDAO.
QUADRATIC FUNDING VS ONE-TOKEN-ONE-VOTE
Technical Deep Dive: Mechanisms and Implementation
A data-driven comparison of the core mechanisms behind two dominant governance and funding models, analyzing their technical trade-offs for protocol architects and DAO operators.
Quadratic Funding (QF) is explicitly designed to resist whale dominance. It uses a square root function to calculate voting power, meaning a voter with 100 times more capital only gets 10 times more influence. In contrast, One-Token-One-Vote (1T1V) is inherently susceptible to whale control, as voting power scales linearly with token holdings, a model seen in protocols like Uniswap and Compound.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Quadratic Funding and One-Token-One-Vote requires aligning your governance model with your protocol's core values and operational goals.
Quadratic Funding (QF) excels at maximizing community preference alignment and reducing plutocratic capture by weighting votes based on the square root of contributed capital. This creates a more democratic outcome where the number of unique contributors matters more than the size of their wallets. For example, Gitcoin Grants has distributed over $50M in ecosystem funding using QF, demonstrating its effectiveness in surfacing projects with broad, grassroots support rather than just deep-pocketed backers.
One-Token-One-Vote (1T1V) takes a different approach by ensuring direct economic alignment and simplicity of execution. This model, used by major DAOs like Uniswap and MakerDAO, directly ties voting power to financial stake, making it highly predictable and resistant to Sybil attacks. This results in a trade-off: while it protects against manipulation via fake identities, it inherently concentrates power with large token holders, which can marginalize smaller, engaged community members.
The key trade-off: If your priority is fostering broad-based community engagement, funding public goods, or mitigating whale dominance, choose Quadratic Funding. If you prioritize capital efficiency, clear accountability for financial decisions, and a straightforward, Sybil-resistant governance mechanism, choose One-Token-One-Vote. For many protocols, a hybrid model—using 1T1V for core parameter votes and QF for community grant distributions—may offer the optimal balance of capital alignment and inclusive participation.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall