Skip to main content

Voting types

The Governance Tool operates on a simple majority voting system. This approach counts only the percentage of "yes" votes and does not require a quorum. You have the flexibility to customize the tool for various voting strategies.

General types of voting in DAOs​

Majority voting​

A proposal passes if it receives more than a specified percentage of "yes" votes.

  • Use case: Commonly used in democratic governance.
  • Pros: Simple and widely understood.
  • Cons: May allow proposals to pass with low participation if there is no quorum required.

Quorum-based voting​

A proposal is only valid if it reaches a minimum number of votes (quorum).

  • Use case: Ensures that decisions have sufficient participation.
  • Pros: Prevents a small group from making significant decisions.
  • Cons: Can delay progress if voter turnout is low.

Supermajority voting​

This method requires a higher threshold (e.g., ⅔ or ¾ approval) for a proposal to pass.

  • Use case: Used for structural changes like amendments to governance rules.
  • Pros: Ensures a strong consensus.
  • Cons: Harder to pass, which may slow down decision-making.

Lazy voting​

Proposals pass by default unless a specific number of participants vote against them.

  • Use case: Reduces voter fatigue in systems with frequent proposals.
  • Pros: Increases efficiency and speeds up decisions.
  • Cons: Risk of unintended approvals if users remain inactive.

Unanimous voting​

All eligible voters must vote "yes" for a proposal to pass.

  • Use case: Used for high-stakes decisions (e.g., constitutional changes).
  • Pros: Guarantees full consensus.
  • Cons: A single dissenting vote can block the proposal, potentially causing deadlock.

Plurality voting​

The option with the most votes wins, even if it does not receive a majority of the votes.

  • Use case: Suitable for multi-option proposals.
  • Pros: Allows for multiple choices in governance.
  • Cons: A winner may emerge with less than 50 percent support, leading to fragmented results.

Ranked-choice voting​

Voters rank proposals by preference. If no option wins outright, votes are redistributed.

  • Use case: Used in elections and proposals with multiple competing options.
  • Pros: Reduces vote splitting and promotes compromise.
  • Cons: More complex to implement and count.

Weighted voting​

Voting power is determined by stake, token balance, or other predefined criteria.

  • Use case: The Governance Tool can configure voting power based on CHR holdings, stake, or hybrid models.
  • Pros: Reflects varying levels of commitment and investment.
  • Cons: There is a risk of centralization if power is concentrated among a few users.

Veto voting​

Certain users (e.g., admins or counselors) can block a proposal even if it receives majority support.

  • Use case: The Governance Tool allows **admins or counselors to veto during a designated period.
  • Pros: Provides an additional layer of review and oversight.
  • Cons: Can limit decentralized decision-making.

Approval voting​

Voters can approve multiple proposals, and the option with the most approvals wins.

  • Use case: Suitable for scenarios where multiple proposals can coexist.
  • Pros: Encourages broad representation of preferences.
  • Cons: May dilute the vote impact if users approve too many proposals.