Quadratic Voting vs Linear Voting: Influence Scaling

Cost scales quadratically with votes: A voter's 10th vote costs 100x their 1st vote. This drastically reduces the influence a single large token holder can exert, promoting a more pluralistic outcome. This matters for DAO treasuries (e.g., Gitcoin Grants) and public goods funding where preventing capture is critical.

Voters signal strength of conviction by paying a premium for additional votes. This generates richer data than a simple yes/no, allowing protocols to prioritize issues the community cares about most. This matters for protocol parameter upgrades or grant allocation where not all proposals are equally important.

One token, one vote. Influence is directly proportional to economic stake, creating a clear and cryptoeconomically secure model. Sybil resistance is achieved through token cost, not complex identity systems. This matters for DeFi governance (e.g., Compound, Uniswap) where execution speed and stakeholder alignment are paramount.

Single transaction per proposal. Voters cast one weighted vote, minimizing on-chain computation and gas fees. This leads to higher participation rates in high-frequency governance systems. This matters for L1/L2 protocol upgrades and active treasury management where voter turnout and cost efficiency are key.

Cost-to-influence scales quadratically: A voter with 10x the capital pays 100x the cost for 10x the voting power. This drastically reduces the impact of wealthy whales. Protocols like Gitcoin Grants use QV to democratize funding, ensuring a $10M whale can't dominate a community round by simply outspending.

Requires identity verification or capital locking to prevent Sybil attacks (e.g., BrightID, Proof of Humanity). This adds friction and centralization vectors. Calculating and displaying cost curves (e.g., on Snapshot with quadratic strategies) is less intuitive than a simple token count, potentially reducing voter participation.

One token, one vote. Influence is directly proportional to stake, making outcomes easy to model and audit. This is the standard for most DAO governance (e.g., Uniswap, Compound), as it aligns cleanly with tokenomics and is trivial to implement on-chain with existing tooling like OpenZeppelin's Governor.

Voting power equals financial power, leading to potential plutocracy. A few large holders (e.g., VCs, foundations) can consistently override the community's preference. This often necessitates vote delegation (e.g., Curve's veToken model) or off-chain signaling to mitigate, adding governance layer complexity.

Higher gas costs and UX friction: Calculating square roots on-chain (e.g., via sqrt in Solidity) and managing token commitments increases transaction complexity. This matters for high-frequency governance on L1 Ethereum or for protocols where voter turnout and speed are prioritized over perfect fairness.

One token, one vote: Influence is directly proportional to stake. This enables straightforward vote delegation (e.g., Compound, Uniswap) and easy quorum calculations. It matters for protocol parameter updates and treasury management where execution speed and clear accountability are paramount.

Vulnerable to plutocracy: A single entity or cartel with large token holdings can single-handedly pass or veto proposals. This matters for decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) aiming for broad-based community alignment, as seen in early struggles of some DeFi protocols where whales dictated outcomes.