Infographics for Quadratic voting

[TurboUrbo]

Example
let’s take a QV scenario in which the voters are issued a 10 voting credits each. The cost of the first vote will be 1 credit, two votes will cost 4, three votes will cost 9 credits and the cost will continue to increase quadratically correlated to the number of votes. If a voter is interested on buying more than 3 votes, then they need to purchase additional credits.

Quadratic Voting as a Governance Protocol
https://hackernoon.com/liberal-radicalism-and-security-tokens-part-i-quadratic-voting-as-a-governance-protocol-10705af3697a

[pasha0x]

@TurboUrbo check this sketch , please. It's oversimplified. But comparing to Eximchain's graphics I've detailed how credits will be distributed after voting and added notion about "infinite pool of votes". What do you think?

[TurboUrbo]

@pasha0x Thanx for the sketch! I see how it works! But it's not clear from the sketch why it's better)or why qv is effective. I see that is more complicated. We should specify the QV advantages
@alinaloseva what do you think? do you understand what is going on the pic?

[igorline]

Hey, @pasha0x! Thanks for the sketch!
We just checked the sketch today with @alinaloseva.

By infinite number of votes you mean undefined at the moment of voting and up to 10 votes, right?
Also, there's a mistake in the sketch, I believe. Is Bob actually spending 10 credits in total for Option B or should it be 16 credits for 4 votes?

And general question to finally understand the topic, in quadratic voting the cost per vote is quadratically increasing for me per each option, right? It doesn't depend on amount of votes placed by other participants, neither on order of votes?

[alinaloseva]

Hi @pasha0x (https://github.com/pasha0x) ! Thank you for the cool sketch!! It is clear, and I was thinking how to simplify even more, maybe to draw the scheme from the voter’s perspective? like ‘If I give 1 vote, it costs me x , if I give 3 votes, ..” — something like this, what do you think ? And also add maybe another one scheme to show that it is much cheeper 100 votes from different people than100 votes from 1 “whale”. So in the 1st scheme we can show how it works, in the 2nd — the benefit of the QV idea. I will draw this later to show what I mean!

…

On Friday, 2 November 2018 at 10:49, Igor Line wrote: Hey, @pasha0x (https://github.com/pasha0x)! Thanks for the sketch! We just checked the sketch today with @alinaloseva (https://github.com/alinaloseva). By infinite number of votes you mean undefined at the moment of voting and up to 10 votes, right? Also, there's a mistake in the sketch, I believe. Is Bob actually spending 10 credits in total for Option B or should it be 16 credits for 4 votes? And general question to finally understand the topic, in quadratic voting the cost per vote is quadratically increasing for me per each option, right? It doesn't depend on amount of votes placed by other participants, neither on order of votes? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub (#1 (comment)), or mute the thread (https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANZLOoCWMjzdSsmZ_BjUkJuEtCSheyHxks5urBUcgaJpZM4X_l6-).

[pasha0x]

Hey! Thank you for feedback.
@TurboUrbo agree. though explanation in text form should be applied, I think.
Also result for Bob here is unclear.

@alinaloseva yeah, showing advantages of QV from voter perspective(maybe from 2 perspectives?) should give more clear picture. The core here is that buying votes can help minorities but on the other hand QV is hard/expensive to "hack".

@igorline answer to your 1st and 3rd questions is
"..In this paper we argue for a simple solution: allow individuals to cast as many (continuous) votes as they wish, but charge them the square of the votes they cast."
https://www.sss.ias.edu/files/pdfs/Rodrik/workshop%2014-15/Weyl-Quadratic_Voting.pdf
and
"Based on market principles, each voter is endowed with a budget of “voice credits” that they may spend influencing the outcome of a range of decisions. If a participant has a strong preference for or against a particular decision, additional votes can be allocated."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_voting
I haven't met any references to "max number of votes" or "buying votes from other voters" in papers.
I had the same question so that's why I put note about "infinite number of votes" - other people will
be asking too.

On 2rd question: I'll check it though I think you're right - it is a mistake.

[pasha0x]

@TurboUrbo @alinaloseva I've put 3 specific cases on paper and added some details. One illustrate QV as better alternative for conventional voting. Second case faces argument about ability of rich to buy votes and easily benefit from system like QV. 3rd is in Eximchain context.
If you know how to generalize those in one infographics, I hope it helps. But I couldn't see how to unite them in one universal formula :)

The main advantage of QV best described in words of one of the authors:
"QV addresses the problem of varying intensities of preferences by giving
those with stronger preferences a means of influencing the outcome in proportion
to the strength of their preferences.
It avoids tyranny of the majority by giving the minority the ability to buy extra votes, but because the minority must pay a price per vote proportional to the votes they purchase, it does not allow the minority to extract unfair outcomes or cause gridlock."

*Smth should be added to my Eximchain sketch: those candidates, who spend more than anticipated reward from being a node, would be considered as suspicious actors. And because everyone would be KYCed, malicious actor will be easily exposed.

[TurboUrbo]

https://twitter.com/EximchainEXC
Eximchain infographics for QV
What do you think? @pasha0x @alinaloseva @igorline

[TurboUrbo]

WOW @pasha0x cool sketches!

[pasha0x]

@TurboUrbo it's great! Clean and simple.
Though game theory aspect is not revealed.
@alinaloseva @igorline what do you think?

[igorline]

[pasha0x]

@alinaloseva this sketch is great! Also the idea about showing it through areas with different size. And a real whale in particular ))

Only one small note: as described in documentation QV works better in large communities. So for whale part I think it's better to take at least several hundreds or thousands voters.

[igorline]

I haven't met any references to "max number of votes" or "buying votes from other voters" in papers.
I had the same question so that's why I put note about "infinite number of votes" - other people will
be asking too.

Got it, @pasha0x! You are meaning that particular voter can cast any number of votes.

[igorline]

"QV addresses the problem of varying intensities of preferences by giving
those with stronger preferences a means of influencing the outcome in proportion
to the strength of their preferences.
It avoids tyranny of the majority by giving the minority the ability to buy extra votes, but because the minority must pay a price per vote proportional to the votes they purchase, it does not allow the minority to extract unfair outcomes or cause gridlock."

@pasha0x, hmm! It's another case relevant to +- equal distribution of credits, without whales. I think it might be the third case to be shown.

[igorline]

I'm missing the point of funds equal distribution on voting ending. Can somebody help me? :)

[pasha0x]

I'm missing the point of funds equal distribution on voting ending. Can somebody help me? :)

@igorline sure. it is done to maximize overall outcome for all participants. so basically those who had strong preferences on outcome eventually "pay" to others who had moderate opinion(haven't casted more than 1 vote, for example).

I haven't met any references to "max number of votes" or "buying votes from other voters" in papers.
I had the same question so that's why I put note about "infinite number of votes" - other people will
be asking too.

Got it, @pasha0x! You are meaning that particular voter can cast any number of votes.

@igorline that's right! I'm sure people who will read article or just look into QV infographics will have exact same question. It would be great if infographics explained/included this aspect as well!

"QV addresses the problem of varying intensities of preferences by giving
those with stronger preferences a means of influencing the outcome in proportion
to the strength of their preferences.
It avoids tyranny of the majority by giving the minority the ability to buy extra votes, but because the minority must pay a price per vote proportional to the votes they purchase, it does not allow the minority to extract unfair outcomes or cause gridlock."

@pasha0x, hmm! It's another case relevant to +- equal distribution of credits, without whales. I think it might be the third case to be shown.

@igorline yeah. it's not eximchain's case though it shows the core idea behind QV - giving minority a chance to defend/express their position when majority doesn't have strong position itself. case about highway construction is right about that. instead of anti-highway activists we could insert minks and foxes promoting ban on furs :)