Voting Power Calculation Proposal

What exponent should be applied to a voter’s token balance to calculate their vote power during the vote phase?

In slightly plainer English, how should a voter’s token balance be modified to balance the voting power of whales and smaller holders?

The HOPR Association proposes that vote power during the vote phase be calculated using a modified version of quadratic voting.

[token balance]^0.75

We feel this gives the right balance between limiting whale vote power and protecting against Sybil attacks

By comparison, a standard quadratic vote would use [token balance]^0.5

One token, one vote is achieved via [token balance]^1 (i.e., the token balance is unchanged)

One person, one vote is achieved via [token balance]^0 (i.e., everyone has a vote power of 1, regardless of token holdings)


I basically agree with [token balance]^0.75
It would be more convincing if you can provide the reason why you come to this number (0.75), also why you 0.5 is not appropriate for protecting against Sybil attacks?
We can perhaps do some simulations based on the current $HOPR token holders.


how about the classical calculation approach based on quadratic voting system : You want to cast your vote toward a specific proposal. Casting one vote will cost you 1hop. However, casting two votes for the same issue will cost you 4hop, casting three votes for the same issue will cost you 9hop and casting 10 votes for the same issue will cost you your entire 100hop of your balance.


I read about Harmonic Mean-Based Voting which is calculating the vote power using the harmonic mean of the token balance raised to a certain exponent. This approach creates a more gradual curve than standard quadratic voting, which could be particularly useful in reducing the influence of whales while still considering token holdings. The formula would be:

Vote Power = [Harmonic Mean of (Token Balance ^ Exponent)]

This method provides a smoother transition in vote power distribution while maintaining the intention to reduce extreme concentration of influence.

1 Like

Comment on another post about age of tokens could also be applied here.
Multiplier as tokens age as opposed to the decay model some other protocols have used

I dont know if its possible but, but it would be interesting to see if there could be a combined metric [token balance]^N + {community engagement}

I dont know if there would be an easy or automated way to track quality forum, discord, telegram activities and have that compute to some sort of multiplier lending toward higher quality engagement provides higher weighted voting.

Why is quadratic not good anymore?

^0.75 proposal is probably the best solution to start. It would be interesting to monitor the effects and adjust as needed, possibly considering actual voting behavior. did you think about any time-locking mechanism?

Interesting. I’ll take a look. Thanks!

It may be. This is just a feeling based on recent votes we’ve run using pure quadratic voting. Although they passed almost unanimously, relatively few Sybils would have needed to be created to swing the vote the other way. I’ll dig out the precise numbers.

I’ve seen models like this, and it’s an interesting idea, but I think it makes more sense for pure governance tokens.

The HOPR token has multiple utilities and tokens, particularly for node runners, would often be in motion even if their overall balance didn’t change much. I wouldn’t want to muddy the incentives by creating a decision between active node running and more powerful governance participation.

I like One person, one vote :partying_face: :partying_face:

Think the harmonic voting sounds interesting. If it gives a more balanced curve as mentioned by Kamila.

Respectfully disagree Ant power. One person, one vote is to easy to game in my opinion. Could have many people(bots) with 1 coin cancelling out people that have shown vested interest/time with project.

I agree, because of limitations on the difference of whales

What are the pro’s and con’s of making hopr node addresses the entry point into the voting and participation tools? (instead of personal wallet addresses) This relates to a suggestion I made a long time ago about giving each node a health score (using such factors as uptime, stake amount, past stake duration, future stake duration, etc) This health score could be a factor in calculating a person’s voting power. Node runners could use this health score to determine if they want to have an open channel with a specific node or not, etc.

That would certainly be a useful consideration for the governance of the HOPR protocol itself

Does this make sense for the Community Trust though?

Just another way to quantify participation. I would consider it a reasonable addition to calculating someone’s voting power because it shows how long they have been around, how long they are willing to stay, and how dedicated they are to supporting the network. Hope you are feeling better, BTW. :)

1 Like

Having read through the tread I think that one node per vote would be restrictive to those non technical HOPR token holders so would exclude them from the voting process. What would be interesting is to see how many of the HOPR token and node runners plus Discord / Telegram participants actually get involved in this set of proposals. I think that would give the HOPR team a good understanding on accessibility / actual participants that actually get involved, rather than those who buy the token, join the Discord, etc. then sit back and don’t get involved. I’m not sure what the total number of participant’s is but would be good to know the % of participants of the project that are actually paying attention. Possibly could move to rewarding active participants rather than hangers on given we have had a month to respond which is a good amount of time, given I was away for the first two weeks and busy with work on my return but are still reviewing and responding / questioning before the deadline now things are a little easier. Maybe a factor of 0.40 reduces the effects of whales who if are dedicated to the HOPR project wouldn’t want to influence the outcome just being a large bag holder. Participation rewards hopefully would encourage those who aren’t as involved as they should be to be more involved, like the NFT changes that become extinct if you didnt keep up with events.

1 Like

If we assume that the community is equivalent to the set of HOPR stakers (perhaps not a great assumption, but I think not terrible either), then we find that around 15-20% of people participate in the discussion phase while around 40% of people vote. Of course the very active participants are <20 in number, but more than that would be very hard to manage. In general we’re very pleased with the participation level there. Of course, the community used to be much larger during the bull market, and the active participation didn’t necessarily grow to match (although we don’t have as much data there)