If a similar system is used on future occasions, it might be a good idea to limit how strong votes are made for users who don’t cast many votes.
The quadratic-vote-allocator’s multiplier of non-quadratic votes was capped at a multiplier of 6x. A “No” vote starts out with a cost −4, so even if you only voted “No” on one item, it wouldn’t become more than a cost of 24 which translates into a vote with weight −6.
Yep, we considered this case, and so intentionally capped how much quadratic vote weight a single qualitative vote can translate to. So I am quite confident that this was intentional.
The quadratic-vote-allocator’s multiplier of non-quadratic votes was capped at a multiplier of 6x. A “No” vote starts out with a cost −4, so even if you only voted “No” on one item, it wouldn’t become more than a cost of 24 which translates into a vote with weight −6.
I’d say the −30 was intentional.
Yep, we considered this case, and so intentionally capped how much quadratic vote weight a single qualitative vote can translate to. So I am quite confident that this was intentional.
Ah, OK. I’m convinced :-).