Yes, like you said, these numbers [1,4,9] are how many times you vote for each entry.
The quadratic voting being implemented here isn’t really connected to the values of these options. Instead, a calculation happens after you select your votes, e.g. when you choose the “vote 9 times” option, it will cost you more than 900% than “voting 1 time”.
So I think that the set of voting options you see above is arbitrary. The choices could be [1,2,3] or [1,10,100] instead of [ 1,4,9].
The actual values just happen to squares. I guess that is sort of a “mental collision” with quadratic voting.
Maybe the designers (at LessWrong) choose 1,4,9, because these values are the best, or because it is sort of a cute callback to quadratic voting.
The voting mechanism here seems to sort of be the other way around. A “9” vote counts as 9 “1″ votes, where as in QV it’d cost 9 to get 3 times “1”.
Yes, you are referring to this:
Yes, like you said, these numbers [1,4,9] are how many times you vote for each entry.
The quadratic voting being implemented here isn’t really connected to the values of these options. Instead, a calculation happens after you select your votes, e.g. when you choose the “vote 9 times” option, it will cost you more than 900% than “voting 1 time”.
So I think that the set of voting options you see above is arbitrary. The choices could be [1,2,3] or [1,10,100] instead of [ 1,4,9].
The actual values just happen to squares. I guess that is sort of a “mental collision” with quadratic voting.
Maybe the designers (at LessWrong) choose 1,4,9, because these values are the best, or because it is sort of a cute callback to quadratic voting.