🐳 Whale Resistance: Cost Scales Quadratically
Discover how QV makes vote buying exponentially expensive
Experience a fairer voting mechanism
Your Progress
0 / 5 completed🐋 Whale Resistance in Action
Whale resistance is quadratic voting's primary value proposition. In linear voting, a single whale with 10,000 tokens controls 50% of votes when facing 100 community members with 100 tokens each (10,000 vs 10,000 total). Perfect plutocracy. In quadratic voting, that same whale gets 100 votes (√10,000) while the community gets 1,000 votes combined (100 × √100 = 100 × 10). The whale now controls only 9.1% of votes. Let's explore how this shifts power dynamics.
🎮 Interactive: Whale vs Community Power Simulator
Adjust whale holdings and community size to see how quadratic voting shifts power away from concentrated holders toward the broader community.
Community has meaningful voice. Democracy restored.
🛡️ How Quadratic Voting Resists Whales
Each additional token provides less voting power. Going from 100 to 200 tokens adds 4.1 votes (√200 - √100). Going from 10,000 to 10,100 tokens adds only 0.5 votes. Buying more tokens becomes inefficient.
Many small holders beat one large holder. 100 people with 100 tokens each (1,000 votes combined) defeat 1 whale with 10,000 tokens (100 votes). Numbers > tokens.
To match 100 community members with 100 tokens each (1,000 votes), a whale needs 1,000,000 tokens (√1,000,000 = 1,000 votes). That's 10x the total community holdings. Dominance costs exponentially more.
Unlike one-person-one-vote, quadratic voting preserves stake-weighted influence. More tokens = more votes, just not linearly. Large holders maintain influence without tyranny. Balance, not elimination.
📊 Real-World Example: Gitcoin Grants
Gitcoin pioneered quadratic funding (QV applied to grants matching). In Round 15 (2022), $1M matching pool was distributed across public goods projects. Projects with broad community support (many small donations) received more matching funds than those with concentrated support (few large donations).
Problem: Single whale has same influence as 100 community members. Not democratic.
Result: Project 2 gets 100x more matching funds despite same total donations. Community preference amplified.
Gitcoin has distributed $50M+ using quadratic funding across 15+ rounds. Projects like Ethereum development tools, climate initiatives, and public goods received funding proportional to community support, not whale preferences. Democracy in funding allocation.
💡 Key Insight
Quadratic voting doesn't eliminate whale power—it compresses it. A whale with 100x more tokens than a small holder gets 10x more votes (not 100x). This shifts governance from plutocracy (rule by wealthy few) to weighted democracy (influence proportional to stake, but with diminishing returns). It's not perfect equality (one-person-one-vote), but it's far more democratic than linear voting while still rewarding token ownership. The mathematical sweet spot between capitalism and democracy.