Crypto Gloss

Quadratic Voting

Quadratic voting (QV) is a voting design intended to let people express how strongly they feel about an issue. In a common version, casting v votes on one choice costs v² voice credits: one vote costs 1 credit, two cost 4, and three cost 9. A participant can spend more influence on a priority, but each additional vote on that same choice becomes more expensive.

How the Credit Rule Works

A system first gives eligible participants a budget of credits and defines what a vote means. If a voter puts three votes on one option, the cost is 3 × 3 = 9 credits. The credits may be limited to one proposal, replenished across proposals, or assigned in another way. Those details change incentives, so “quadratic” alone does not describe a complete voting system.

What QV Tries to Improve

One-token-one-vote makes voting power directly proportional to token balance. QV instead makes concentrated voting power cost more under its chosen credit and identity rules. It can represent intensity of preference and may give smaller holders a more meaningful way to signal priorities. It does not guarantee equal influence, a correct outcome, or protection from wealthy participants: the result depends on how credits are allocated, who qualifies as a participant, and whether one person can create multiple identities.

Sybil Resistance and Design Tradeoffs

A Sybil attack uses multiple accounts or identities to gain influence. If credits are granted per account and people can cheaply create accounts, a participant may split influence across them and reduce the quadratic cost. Designers therefore need an eligibility or identity system, but verification can introduce privacy, access, and centralization tradeoffs. Credit budgets also need a defensible allocation rule; different starting endowments can reproduce inequalities the mechanism was meant to reduce.

Quadratic Voting Is Not Quadratic Funding

Quadratic funding (QF) is a related grant-allocation formula, not another name for QV. QF aims to direct a matching pool toward projects with broad individual support; its match formula uses the distribution of contributions. A QV ballot instead lets participants purchase votes using credits. Both can be vulnerable to fake identities or collusion unless their surrounding rules address those risks.

Implementations also vary. Snapshot, for example, offers voting types that transform voting power in particular ways; a square-root balance calculation is not automatically the same as the classic credit-budget mechanism described above. Check a DAO’s exact rules, eligibility, snapshot point, and execution process before interpreting a result.

Questions to Ask About a QV Proposal

  • Who receives credits, how many, and can unused credits carry over?
  • What stops one participant from dividing influence among multiple eligible accounts?
  • Can voters oppose a proposal as well as support it, and are votes private or public?
  • Who executes the result, and what review or appeal process exists?

Social Media Sentiment

A June 2025 r/Cardano discussion about quadratic voting argued that a system should not be adopted before its Sybil-resistance and governance procedures are mature. Other commenters disagreed on whether QV could still help. This is a dated discussion from one community, not a poll or a general finding about QV deployments.

Last updated: 2026-10

Related Terms

See Also

Sources