Quadratic Voting for Parameters vs Linear Voting for Rules

Specific advantage: Voting power scales with the square root of tokens committed, drastically reducing whale dominance. A user with 100x the tokens gets only 10x the voting power. This matters for community-driven protocols like Gitcoin Grants or Optimism's Citizen House, where broad consensus is more valuable than concentrated capital.

Specific advantage: Excels at finding optimal values for continuous variables (e.g., fee percentages, inflation rates). The cost to marginally shift consensus rises quadratically, forcing large stakeholders to pay heavily for extreme positions. This matters for parameter tuning in DeFi protocols (e.g., setting AMM swap fees or lending rates) where the 'correct' answer is a number, not a binary choice.

Specific advantage: 1 token = 1 vote. Governance power and economic stake are directly aligned, making outcomes and attack costs easy to model. This matters for security-focused L1s and L2s (e.g., Uniswap, Arbitrum DAO) where voters with the largest skin in the game should have proportional say in critical upgrades or treasury management.

Specific advantage: Low cognitive and computational overhead for yes/no decisions. Ideal for ratifying completed code (e.g., Ethereum EIPs) or approving/disapproving discrete proposals. This matters for executing protocol upgrades and on-chain governance where clear, decisive outcomes are required without ambiguity (e.g., Compound, MakerDAO).

Specific advantage: Voting power scales with the square root of capital committed, making large-scale collusion exponentially expensive. This matters for parameter proposals (like adjusting fee curves or inflation rates) where a few whales shouldn't dominate outcomes. Projects like Gitcoin Grants and Optimism's Citizen House use QV to fund public goods and govern retroactive funding.

Specific advantage: Amplifies the voice of a large number of small stakeholders, leading to decisions that reflect the median community preference. This matters for subjective parameter changes (e.g., aesthetic DAO treasury allocations or grant recipient selection) where diverse input is valued over pure capital weight.

Specific disadvantage: Requires complex identity verification (e.g., proof-of-personhood via Worldcoin, BrightID) or capital locking to prevent sybil attacks, adding significant technical overhead and friction. This matters for high-frequency parameter updates (like weekly yield adjustments) where voting latency and cost can hinder agility.

Specific disadvantage: The mathematical complexity and extra steps for identity/capital commitment can suppress voter turnout. This matters for critical security parameters (e.g., slashing conditions, validator set size) where high participation from knowledgeable stakeholders is non-negotiable.

Specific advantage: One token, one vote. Direct, easy to understand, and fast to execute using standards like OpenZeppelin Governor. This matters for time-sensitive rule changes (e.g., emergency multisig threshold adjustments or responding to an exploit) where decisive, capital-weighted action is required.

Specific advantage: Voters' economic stake is directly proportional to their influence, ensuring those with the most skin in the game bear the consequences. This matters for high-stakes economic parameters (e.g., protocol fee percentages, token emission schedules) where financial incentives must be perfectly aligned.

Specific advantage: Voting power scales with the square root of tokens held, costing $n^2$ to gain n votes. This makes large-scale vote buying exponentially expensive. This matters for public goods funding (e.g., Gitcoin Grants) and parameter adjustments where preventing whale dominance is critical.

Specific disadvantage: Requires complex on-chain computation for square roots and validation, increasing gas costs per vote. Integration with existing tooling (Snapshot, Tally) is non-trivial. This matters for high-frequency governance on L1s or protocols where user experience and cost are primary concerns.

Specific advantage: 1 token = 1 vote. This creates a clear, auditable cost-benefit analysis for proposals and is natively supported by all major governance platforms (Compound Governor, OpenZeppelin). This matters for protocols with established token distribution (e.g., Uniswap, Aave) where stakeholder alignment is already measured by stake.

Specific disadvantage: Large token holders (CEXs, VCs) can single-handedly pass or veto proposals, leading to centralization risks and reduced small-holder participation. This matters for decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) aiming for broad-based legitimacy and resistance to regulatory pressure as a "decentralized" entity.