PQV
  • ๐Ÿ–๏ธIntroduction
    • Problem and Solution
  • Problem: Background
    • โ˜‘๏ธEvolution of Voting System
    • ๐ŸงจSybil Attack
  • Solution: PQV
    • ๐Ÿ’กProbabilistic QV
    • ๐ŸšงMathematical Proof
    • ๐Ÿค–Simulation
      • Environment
      • Results
    • ๐Ÿ”ขPQV Calculator
  • Use Cases
    • ๐Ÿ’ตQuadratic Funding
    • ๐Ÿ”‘PoS/DPoS
    • ๐ŸงฑApplications
      • LeGovernor
  • Governor C
    • ๐Ÿ›๏ธGovernor C
    • ๐Ÿ‘ฉโ€๐Ÿ’ปDeveloper Guides
  • Discussions
    • โ›“๏ธMulti-Chain PQV
  • References
    • Papers
  • D3LAB Media
    • Website
    • Twitter
    • Github
    • Medium
    • LinkedIn
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  1. Solution: PQV
  2. Simulation

Environment

PreviousSimulationNextResults

Last updated 3 years ago

After proving Sybil resistancy of PQV, D3LAB conducted a simulation experiment to confirm the performance. The simulation compared three types of voting methods and PQV.

Three Types of voting methods

  1. One-Person-One-Vote

  2. One-Dollor-One-Vote

  3. Quadratic Voting

Detailed conditions of Simulation

  • Voting participants have random preferences for the candidates they should select.

  • The amount of votes distributed to participants is randomly distributed according to a Pareto distribution (In order to reflect the real-world condition as much as possible)

  • If the same candidate is elected under the same conditions, it is assumed that the two voting methods are similar.

๐Ÿค–
Voting power distribution following Pareto dist.