Enhancing Decentralization in Blockchain Decision-Making Through Quadratic Voting and Its Generalization
Authors:
Lyudmila Kovalchuk,
Mariia Rodinko,
Roman Oliynykov,
Andrii Nastenko,
Dmytro Kaidalov,
Kenric Nelson
Abstract:
This study explores the application of Quadratic Voting (QV) and its generalization to improve decentralization and effectiveness in blockchain governance systems. The conducted research identified three main types of quadratic (square root) voting. Two of them pertain to voting with a split stake, and one involves voting without splitting. In split stakes, Type 1 QV applies the square root to the…
▽ More
This study explores the application of Quadratic Voting (QV) and its generalization to improve decentralization and effectiveness in blockchain governance systems. The conducted research identified three main types of quadratic (square root) voting. Two of them pertain to voting with a split stake, and one involves voting without splitting. In split stakes, Type 1 QV applies the square root to the total stake before distributing it among preferences, while Type 2 QV distributes the stake first and then applies the square root. In unsplit stakes (Type 3 QV), the square root of the total stake is allocated entirely to each preference. The presented formal proofs confirm that Types 2 and 3 QV, along with generalized models, enhance decentralization as measured by the Gini and Nakamoto coefficients. A pivotal discovery is the existence of a threshold stakeholder whose relative voting ratio increases under QV compared to linear voting, while smaller stakeholders also gain influence. The generalized QV model allows flexible adjustment of this threshold, enabling tailored decentralization levels. Maintaining fairness, QV ensures that stakeholders with higher stakes retain a proportionally greater voting ratio while redistributing influence to prevent excessive concentration. It is shown that to preserve fairness and robustness, QV must be implemented alongside privacy-preserving cryptographic voting protocols, as voters casting their ballots last could otherwise manipulate outcomes. The generalized QV model, proposed in this paper, enables algorithmic parametrization to achieve desired levels of decentralization for specific use cases. This flexibility makes it applicable across diverse domains, including user interaction with cryptocurrency platforms, facilitating community events and educational initiatives, and supporting charitable activities through decentralized decision-making.
△ Less
Submitted 17 April, 2025;
originally announced April 2025.
Parallel Contests for Crowdsourcing Reviews: Existence and Quality of Equilibria
Authors:
Georgios Birmpas,
Lyudmila Kovalchuk,
Philip Lazos,
Roman Oliynykov
Abstract:
Motivated by the intricacies of allocating treasury funds in blockchain settings, we study the problem of crowdsourcing reviews for many different proposals, in parallel. During the reviewing phase, every reviewer can select the proposals to write reviews for, as well as the quality of each review. The quality levels follow certain very coarse community guidelines and can have values such as 'exce…
▽ More
Motivated by the intricacies of allocating treasury funds in blockchain settings, we study the problem of crowdsourcing reviews for many different proposals, in parallel. During the reviewing phase, every reviewer can select the proposals to write reviews for, as well as the quality of each review. The quality levels follow certain very coarse community guidelines and can have values such as 'excellent' or 'good'. Based on these scores and the distribution of reviews, every reviewer will receive some reward for their efforts. In this paper, we design a reward scheme and show that it always has pure Nash equilibria, for any set of proposals and reviewers. In addition, we show that these equilibria guarantee constant factor approximations for two natural metrics: the total quality of all reviews, as well as the fraction of proposals that received at least one review, compared to the optimal outcome.
△ Less
Submitted 8 May, 2025; v1 submitted 8 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
