Understanding Quadratic Voting in Project Catalyst: A Beginner-Friendly Guide for Ghanaians

Cardano’s Project Catalyst is the world’s largest decentralized innovation fund. It allows the Cardano community to decide which projects receive funding to grow the ecosystem. But how do we make sure that voting is fair, inclusive, and impactful? That’s where voting systems come in.

Democracy without nuance is like planting one tree for every person, regardless of how thirsty each is.

Until now, Catalyst has mostly worked on a simple principle: the more ADA you hold, the more voting power you have. But with Fund14, a new twist has been added — Generalized Quadratic Voting. This might sound like complicated math, but don’t worry. We’ll break it down in plain English, with examples that even connect to Ghanaian day-to-day life.

The Old Voting System: 1 ADA = 1 Vote

Previously, Catalyst followed a linear voting system:

• If you held 1 ADA, you had 1 vote.
• If you held 10 ADA, you had 10 votes.
• If you held 10,000 ADA, you had 10,000 votes.

This sounds fair on the surface, but it creates one big problem: whales dominate the system.

Imagine a village meeting in northern Ghana. Everyone is supposed to have a say on whether to build a new borehole. Now, if one rich farmer shows up with 1,000 goats while most people only own 1–5 goats, and we said “1 goat = 1 vote,” the rich farmer would practically decide the outcome alone. That’s not fair to the rest of the community.

This is what happened with linear voting — those with very large ADA holdings could control the outcome of funding decisions.

The New Twist: Quadratic Voting

Fund14 introduces a system called Generalized Quadratic Voting (GQV). Here, instead of votes being counted directly as ADA, your voting power is reduced using a mathematical function.

The formula looks like this:

Voting Power = (Stake in ADA) ^ γ (gamma)

Where γ (gamma) is a parameter that determines how much influence stake has.

• If γ = 1 → we are back to 1 ADA = 1 vote (the old system).
• If γ = 0 → every wallet gets 1 vote, no matter how much ADA is inside.
• For Fund14, γ = 1/3 (cube root) → a compromise between the two.

Real-Life Example: A Ghanaian Market Scene

Think of the Kumasi Central Market. Every trader is asked to vote on whether the market should open earlier on Saturdays. But how should votes be counted?

1. Old System (γ = 1): The richest yam seller with 10,000 tubers has 10,000 votes. She alone decides the outcome. The tomato seller with only 50 tomatoes has practically no voice.
2. Equal Wallet System (γ = 0): Every trader, regardless of stock size, gets 1 vote. Now the yam seller and tomato seller are equal. But some argue this ignores the yam seller’s much bigger stake in the market.
3. Quadratic System (γ = 1/3):
   • Yam seller (10,000 stock): voting power ≈ 21.5
   • Tomato seller (50 stock): voting power ≈ 3.7
   • Small pepper seller (10 stock): voting power ≈ 2.1
   Now the yam seller still has more voice, but not overwhelmingly so. Everyone matters in the decision.

Numbers That Show the Difference

Let’s compare five Cardano wallets under different γ values:

Key takeaway: Under Fund14’s cube root system, Eve the whale still matters most, but her dominance is reduced from 98% of the influence down to about 67%. Alice, Bob, and Carol — the small fish — suddenly matter much more.

Thresholds: How Proposals Pass

Another key piece of Catalyst voting is the threshold rule. For a proposal to be funded, it must reach at least 1% of the total voting power.

• Example: If total voting power across all wallets = 1,200,000, then the threshold = 12,000.
• If you have 100 ADA (≈ 4.64 voting power), you would need about 2,586 wallets like yours voting YES to cross the line.
• If you had 50,000 ADA (≈ 36.8 voting power), you would need 326 wallets like yours.

This prevents very tiny groups from pushing through proposals nobody else cares about.

Why This Matters for Ghanaians

Ghana, like many parts of Africa, has a growing number of small ADA holders — students, young professionals, small traders, and crypto enthusiasts who may hold between 10–500 ADA. In the old system, your votes barely mattered against whales. But under quadratic voting:

• A 100 ADA student’s voice is significantly amplified.
• Communities can pool small ADA holdings to collectively influence outcomes.
• It feels more like a real town-hall meeting where both chiefs and ordinary citizens contribute.

This is crucial if we want local African projects — like agricultural solutions, DeFi education, or online marketplaces — to stand a chance at Catalyst funding.

Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Reduces whale dominance.
• Encourages broad participation.
• Fairer to smaller stakeholders.
• Balances “skin in the game” with democratic inclusion.

Cons:

• More complex to explain.
• Possible risk of Sybil attacks (one person splitting ADA into many wallets). Catalyst uses registration processes to reduce this.
• Still evolving: future Funds may tweak gamma.

Final Thoughts

Quadratic voting in Catalyst Fund14 is a major step forward. It doesn’t throw away stake-based fairness but makes sure everyday ADA holders — like many Ghanaians who are just starting their crypto journey — actually count in shaping the Cardano ecosystem.

This is how Cardano stays true to its vision of global inclusion. Whether you’re a farmer in Tamale holding 20 ADA, a student in Accra with 100 ADA, or a whale in Europe with 50,000 ADA — your voice will shape the future of innovation.

So, the next time you register to vote in Project Catalyst, remember: your ADA may be small, but under quadratic voting, your impact is bigger than you think.

References

• Project Catalyst Parameters – IOG Documentation
• Quadratic Voting Concept – Wikipedia
• Cardano Forum – Catalyst Fund14 Announcement

Author’s Note: This blog was written with Ghana in mind. Examples and analogies are drawn from our markets, farms, and communities so that everyone — from students to traders — can understand how the Cardano ecosystem is changing.