202510151147 - convincing-voting

Main Topic

Q: What is conviction voting, and why would a DAO use it instead of one-off token voting?

Conviction voting is a continuous allocation mechanism where supporters stake voting power on proposals over time. The longer stake stays allocated to a proposal, the more “conviction” accumulates (usually with a decay model so conviction grows toward a limit). A proposal passes once its accumulated conviction exceeds a threshold.

The core design goal is to let participants express strength of preference without requiring synchronous, one-shot elections. In typical token voting, every decision is a discrete event, and participants must show up at the right time. Conviction voting instead turns governance into a background process: people signal ongoing support, and proposals that gather sustained support eventually pass.

A useful intuition is the “slow cooker” model:

This mechanism is often used for allocating treasury funds among many competing proposals, where you want continuous prioritization rather than winner-take-all voting rounds.

🌲 Branching Questions

Q: How is conviction typically computed (conceptually), and what parameters matter?

Most implementations use a time-weighted function with decay, so conviction at time t depends on prior conviction and current staked amount. The practical reason for decay is to avoid “infinite accumulation” and to make it possible for support to fade if attention shifts.

Key parameters:

The parameters encode political values: responsiveness versus stability, and how expensive it is to change direction.

Q: What are the main benefits and failure modes in practice?

Benefits:

Failure modes and risks:

Conviction voting works best when the DAO has good proposal curation, clear treasury policies, and a simple interface for stake allocation.

Q: When should a DAO prefer conviction voting vs. quadratic voting or snapshot-style voting?

Conviction voting is a good fit when decisions are about ongoing prioritization and funding allocation across multiple proposals. Snapshot-style voting is better when decisions are discrete, high-stakes, and need explicit legitimacy at a specific time (constitutional changes, parameter upgrades).

Quadratic voting can express preference intensity in a single round, but it introduces identity / sybil assumptions (or requires strong anti-sybil measures) and different game dynamics. Conviction voting instead assumes token-weighted power but uses time as an additional signal.

A common pattern is hybrid governance:

References