Different voting systems balance competing priorities: proportional stake representation, minority protection, and preventing whale dominance. Understanding these models helps you participate effectively.
Simple Token-Weighted Voting
The most straightforward model: 1 token = 1 vote.
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Mechanism | Each token holder votes proportional to holdings |
| Pros | Simple, aligns with economic stake, familiar to investors |
| Cons | Large holders ("whales") can dominate decisions |
| Best For | Routine operational decisions, early-stage governance |
Example: Alice (100,000 tokens) vs Bob (1,000 tokens). Alice has 100x voting power. On a project selection vote, if Alice votes Yes and Bob votes No, Alice's preference prevails unless 100 other Bob-sized holders unite against her.
Quadratic Voting
Cost to cast votes increases quadratically: 1 vote costs 1 token, 2 votes cost 4 tokens, 3 votes cost 9 tokens, etc. This reduces whale dominance while still reflecting economic stake.
| Votes Desired | Token Cost | Marginal Cost |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 4 | 3 |
| 3 | 9 | 5 |
| 5 | 25 | 16 (from 3 to 5) |
| 10 | 100 | 75 (from 3 to 10) |
| 100 | 10,000 | 9,900 (from 3 to 100) |
Try the numbers yourself: the voting power calculator compares linear and quadratic power for any two stakes.
Time-Weighted Voting
Voting power increases with holding duration, rewarding long-term commitment. A token held for 2 years might have 2x the voting power of one held for 1 day.
| Holding Period | Vote Multiplier | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 0-30 days | 1.0x | 1,000 tokens = 1,000 votes |
| 31-180 days | 1.2x | 1,000 tokens = 1,200 votes |
| 181-365 days | 1.5x | 1,000 tokens = 1,500 votes |
| 1-2 years | 2.0x | 1,000 tokens = 2,000 votes |
| 2+ years | 2.5x | 1,000 tokens = 2,500 votes |
Rationale: Renewable infrastructure requires decades to realize full value. Time-weighting aligns voting power with commitment to long-term success, reducing impact of short-term traders.
Choosing between them
Most real projects mix all three: linear weighting for routine operational votes, a quadratic or reputation-weighted rule for capital allocation, and a time multiplier so a wallet that bought in yesterday cannot outvote one that has carried the risk for two years. Whichever rule a DAO picks, it lives in a smart contract and can only be changed by a vote held under the old rule — which makes the voting model the one decision that constrains every later decision.