Quadratic voting system

Improving ApeCoin DAO’s Decision-Making Processes

Process - For proposals aimed at changing the decision-making processes of the ApeCoin DAO.
I am an independent developer teaming up with a friend who has more extensive experience in the field, aiming to bring significant improvements to the ApeCoin DAO’s processes.

This proposal aims to introduce a quadratic voting system within the ApeCoin DAO to make decisions more equitable and representative of the community.

Quadratic voting could potentially diminish the power of large token holders and give more weight to individual voices, thus strengthening democracy within the ecosystem.

Quadratic Voting - A voting system where the cost of each additional vote increases exponentially.

We will use custom smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain to implement the voting system.

Implementation will require the creation and testing of smart contracts, community education on the new voting system, and integration with existing ApeCoin DAO platforms. We plan to start this project in Q3 2024 and span over 6 months.

The estimated total budget for this initiative is approximately 50,000 APE.

Why use a custom smart contract when Snapshot already has Quadratic Voting as an option?

Is there something else this new custom smart contract will do outside of this function or is this the main feature?

Who is the friend you are partnering with?

What is your smart contract development experience? Do you have examples to showcase?


Could you explain better how this quadratic voting issue actually works?
How would you reduce the voting power of the largest token holders?
I like our current system, it works very well.

1 Like

Hi. Really great to read ideas on voting. :handshake::handshake:

I have looked at almost every established voting system including QV. I’m still of the belief we need something entirely bespoke.

Could you detail how you would combat Sybil attacks (which is just one of the drawbacks to this method).

And also comment a bit on what Livefast mentioned - why would we move away from snapshot (who offer QV as standard) and potentially create a situation where all apecoin used to vote could be put at risk (bugs/vulnerabilities in the code).

Many thanks.


Also, should this be enacted, how do you plan on addressing the issue of whales creating multiple wallets and splitting their APE amongst them?

Do you plan on implementing some type of sybil resistance mechanism? If so, what will that look like?


Here’s a little update on my topic, the main aim of which is to implement bond voting in the quadratic system:

The bond voting mechanism proposes that votes should be weighted not only by the quantity of tokens, but also by the time over which those tokens are committed.
This could discourage large token holders from splitting their funds, as they would also need to commit to a period of time for each portfolio, increasing their opportunity cost.

It is important to note that the implementation of such mechanisms must be done carefully to avoid discouraging legitimate participation while preventing manipulation.

1 Like

I look forward to seeing your idea detailed in full. But at this stage there’s simply nowhere near enough specifics for me to agree in principle to such an impactful change.

Personally I was beginning to lean towards the idea of creating a small team to investigate and research this whole topic as it is so vast and important we get right.

Ok, will follow, hope to see much more detail soon. Thanks.

1 Like

Committed? You mean like APE has to be “locked up” somewhere?

Personally, I think you are going to have an uphill battle because your proposal is basically asking ApeCoin DAO to get off of Snapshot for the purposes of your Quadratic Voting.

So either this AIP is Quadratic Voting as you describe it in addition to building out a whole new voting mechanism to replace the functionality of Snapshot


You look into creating what you want as strategies within Snapshot.


I think your Idea is nice, but this will require a lot of strategies because the DAO will be basically ran by you and your partner… moreover the friend in person should be identifiable and is he/she part of the ape community?

1 Like

I fully understand that the info isn’t detailed enough, but I won’t hesitate to tell you more once my friend and I have brainstormed.
I thank everyone for the constructive answers!:heart:

1 Like

Hi @Valll67,

The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in less than 24 hours.

  • If you’re content with the feedback received, your next steps are to finalize your proposal using the AIP Draft Template.

  • A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft, we will review and provide instructions on the next steps.

  • Are you ready to proceed to the next phase or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?

We look forward to hearing from you.


This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.

Hi @Valll67,

Thank you for your ideas [and the ApeCoin DAO community for the insightful discussions].

A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft using the appropriate template.

  • Once the AIP Draft is confirmed by the author and meets all DAO-approved guidelines, it will receive an AIP ID number and move forward for Draft Analysis Review.
  • @Valll67 please see your messages for the next steps.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments. In accordance with DAO-approved guidelines, if the author does not respond within 30 days, the proposal will be automatically transferred to the Withdrawn category, and the author can re-submit the idea.


Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

This Topic has been rejected based on the DAO-approved guidelines due to no response in the last 30 days. The Topic may be submitted again by any user and upon approval, will be open for 7 days for community discussions.

This Topic will move and remain in the Withdrawn AIPs category.