Read the passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best answer to each of the following questions from 6...

Read the passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best answer to each of the following questions from 6 to 15.

        Budget-setting in communities often pits intensity against fairness. Quadratic Voting (QV) offers a remedy by allocating each participant a fixed credit budget and converting credits to votes via square roots. Placing 100 credits on one line yields 10 votes; splitting 25 credits yields 5 votes, and so on. This non-linear conversion attenuates plutocratic sway while preserving voice. [I] Because costs rise faster than votes, citizens disclose how much they care, not merely what they prefer, within a shared, transparent budget constraint.

        Implementations vary. A “vote faucet” can issue valueless tokens solely for casting votes, or eligibility can be bounded to holders of certain NFTs or proven on-chain behaviors. Organisers may tier voting power by tenure, rewarding patient contributors. [II] Because votes scale with the square root of credits, intensity is expressed without letting large holders overwhelm outcomes. Administrative steps are straightforward: allocate credits, let people distribute them across options, compute squared costs, then tally roots – declaring the highest total the winner.

        QV’s expressiveness helps minority priorities surface in budget debates, yet design choices matter. Selective eligibility can incentivise participation but also create hierarchies that concentrated actors might game. By contrast, Quadratic Funding treats donations equally – many see that level playing field as both virtue and limitation when allocating money. [III] In QV, credits are uniform yet curatable, so communities can include more voices while dampening domination, provided safeguards against Sybil attacks and lobbying are specified ex ante.

        Effectiveness should be measured with turnout targets, distributional patterns across line items, and qualitative feedback on perceived legitimacy. Colorado House Democrats used a QV variant with virtual tokens to prioritise appropriations after 2018, producing clearer signals about salience. Ecosystem experiments, such as Fantom’s Gitcoin rounds, show scalable community budgeting with valueless voting tokens and anti-Sybil checks. [IV] When credits are intelligibly budgeted and metrics reviewed, QV can democratise agenda-setting without cash donations steering public choices.

(Adapted from Gitcoin, “Quadratic Voting: A How-To Guide”)

Question 6. The word attenuates in paragraph 1 mostly means ______.

A. strongly weakens                                        B. slightly complicates

C. marginally increases                                D. abruptly delays