Instructions: For each voting mechanism, calculate the outcome of your proposal using realistic assumptions about voter behavior. Use the token distribution data from your selected DAO profile.
1. Token Voting (Standard)
How it works: 1 token = 1 vote. The most common DAO voting mechanism.
Simple and transparent, but gives disproportionate power to large token holders ("whales").
Vote Weight = Number of Tokens Held
Scenario Assumptions
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Total token supply | |
| Expected voter turnout % | |
| Total votes cast | |
| Quorum requirement |
Vote Distribution Calculation
| Voter Group | Tokens Held | % Voting YES | % Voting NO | YES Votes | NO Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holders | |||||
| Top 11-100 | |||||
| Small holders | |||||
| TOTALS | - | ||||
Token Voting Results
YES Votes
_________
NO Votes
_________
YES %
_____%
Quorum Met?
_______
OUTCOME: ____________
Analysis Questions
1. How much influence do the top 10 holders have?
2. What if turnout was higher/lower?
2. Quadratic Voting
How it works: Voters spend "voice credits" to cast votes, but the cost is quadratic.
1 vote costs 1 credit, 2 votes cost 4 credits, 3 votes cost 9 credits, etc. This reduces whale influence.
Votes Cast = √(Voice Credits Spent)
Cost of N votes = N²
Cost of N votes = N²
Example: If you have 100 voice credits, you could cast:
• 10 votes (costs 10² = 100 credits), OR
• 5 votes on Proposal A (costs 25) + 5 votes on Proposal B (costs 25) + 7 votes on Proposal C (costs 49)
• 10 votes (costs 10² = 100 credits), OR
• 5 votes on Proposal A (costs 25) + 5 votes on Proposal B (costs 25) + 7 votes on Proposal C (costs 49)
Scenario Assumptions
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Voice credit allocation method | |
| Expected participation | |
| Average credits spent per voter |
Quadratic Vote Calculation
| Voter Group | Voice Credits | Credits Spent | Votes Cast | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holders | ||||
| Top 11-100 | ||||
| Small holders (aggregate) | ||||
| TOTALS | ||||
Quadratic Voting Results
YES Votes
_________
NO Votes
_________
YES %
_____%
Outcome
_______
Analysis Questions
1. How does this compare to token voting?
2. Strategic voting considerations
3. Conviction Voting
How it works: Vote weight accumulates over time. The longer you keep your tokens staked on a proposal, the more "conviction" (voting power) you build. Used by Gitcoin and other continuous funding mechanisms.
Conviction = Tokens × Time Factor
Time Factor = 1 - (0.5)^(days/half_life)
Time Factor = 1 - (0.5)^(days/half_life)
Example: Half-life = 10 days. After 10 days, conviction = 50% of max. After 20 days, 75%. After 30 days, 87.5%.
Scenario Assumptions
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Conviction half-life | |
| Proposal age | |
| Spending limit calculation |
Conviction Build-up Calculation
| Voter Group | Tokens | Days Staked | Time Factor | Conviction | Support? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Early supporters (Day 1) | |||||
| Mid supporters (Day 10) | |||||
| Late supporters (Day 17) | |||||
| Opponents (Day 5) | |||||
| TOTALS | |||||
Conviction Voting Results
YES Conviction
_________
NO Conviction
_________
Required Threshold
_________
Passes?
_______
Analysis Questions
1. How does timing affect the outcome?
2. Advantages for community proposals
Cross-Mechanism Comparison
| Criterion | Token Voting | Quadratic Voting | Conviction Voting |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome (Pass/Fail) | |||
| Margin of victory/defeat | |||
| Top 10 holders' influence | |||
| Community support level | |||
| Vulnerability to manipulation |
Synthesis Questions
1. Which mechanism is most favorable to your proposal? Why?
2. How would you modify your proposal to gain broader support?
3. If you were a large token holder, how would you vote? Why?
4. What governance improvements would you recommend for your selected DAO?
© Joerg Osterrieder 2025-2026. All rights reserved.