Token-Weighted Voting vs Quadratic Voting

Pros: Simplicity & Capital Alignment: 1 token = 1 vote. This is easy to implement (e.g., Compound, Uniswap) and aligns voting power directly with financial stake. It's ideal for tokenholder-centric decisions like treasury management or fee distribution.

Cons: Whale Dominance: Large holders can single-handedly sway outcomes, leading to centralization risks and reduced participation from smaller stakeholders.

Pros: Plurality & Sybil Resistance: Votes cost the square of the number of votes cast (e.g., 2 votes cost 4 credits). This dramatically reduces whale power and amplifies minority voices, as seen in Gitcoin Grants. It's superior for public goods funding and community sentiment polling.

Cons: Complexity & Cost: Requires identity verification (e.g., BrightID, Proof of Humanity) to prevent Sybil attacks, adding friction and cost. Vote calculation is more complex than simple summation.

Your governance is tightly coupled to financial risk and reward. Use it for:

• Protocol Parameter Updates (e.g., adjusting interest rates on Aave).
• Executive votes requiring deep economic skin in the game.
• Early-stage DAOs where simplicity and speed of implementation are critical.

You need to measure broad community preference over capital concentration. Ideal for:

• Retroactive Public Goods Funding (the Gitcoin model).
• Content/Feature Prioritization in social DAOs.
• Protocol upgrades where diverse, non-financial input is valued (e.g., aesthetic or UX decisions).

Direct alignment of stake and influence: 1 token = 1 vote. This creates predictable, high-stakes governance where large holders are directly accountable for outcomes. This matters for DeFi protocols like Uniswap or Aave, where major treasury or parameter decisions require deep skin-in-the-game.

Attack cost is transparent: To execute a 51% attack, an adversary must acquire a majority of the voting supply. This creates a clear, market-based security model. This matters for Layer 1 blockchains like Ethereum (staking) or liquid staking tokens, where governance attacks could compromise network integrity.

Dilutes whale power: Votes are calculated as the square root of tokens committed (√tokens). Doubling your voting power requires quadrupling your capital. This matters for public goods funding (e.g., Gitcoin Grants) and community-centric DAOs like Optimism's Citizen House, aiming to measure breadth of support over depth of pockets.

Leads to centralized control: A few large holders (VCs, exchanges) can consistently outvote the fragmented community. This can stifle innovation and lead to proposals that benefit whales at the expense of the ecosystem. This is a critical failure mode for long-tail community projects.

Higher gas costs and attack vectors: Calculating square roots on-chain is expensive. It also introduces vulnerabilities like collusion (splitting funds among fake identities) and requires robust identity verification (e.g., BrightID, Proof of Humanity). This matters for teams with limited engineering resources for custom governance infrastructure.

Direct alignment of stake and influence: Voters with the largest economic stake (e.g., major token holders like a16z, Paradigm) have the greatest say, which can lead to faster, more decisive outcomes for high-stakes treasury or upgrade votes. This is critical for protocols like Uniswap or Compound where large capital providers bear the most risk.

Inherently resistant to vote splitting: Attackers must acquire a large, expensive stake to influence outcomes, making governance attacks costly. This security model is battle-tested in major DAOs like MakerDAO for executive votes and parameter changes, where stability is paramount.

Cost scales quadratically with votes: A voter's influence is the square root of their capital spent. This dilutes the power of whales and gives smaller, passionate communities (e.g., Gitcoin Grants donors) a stronger voice. Ideal for public goods funding or community sentiment polls.

Captures "how much" voters care: Allows participants to strongly signal support for a few key proposals by spending more voice credits, rather than spreading votes thinly. Used effectively in Radicle's governance for prioritizing development work, revealing consensus strength beyond simple majority.

Risk of centralized control: A few large holders (CEXs, VCs) can dictate outcomes, leading to voter apathy among the broader community. This can stifle innovation, as seen in debates over Ethereum EIPs or SushiSwap treasury management.

Requires robust identity proof: Without a cost-effective Sybil resistance mechanism (like BrightID, Worldcoin), the system is easily gamed by splitting holdings into many accounts. Adds significant implementation and user experience complexity versus simple token voting.