At the Olympism365 Innovation Hub, we know it’s essential to experiment with new tools and approaches to foster innovation and enhance impact in sport for sustainable development (SfSD). In June 2025, through our tech-focused funding strand, Tech365, we experimented with a novel participatory funding approach: Quadratic Voting. Using the Wellbeing Protocol platform, 78 individuals within the Olympism365 ecosystem democratically decided how to allocate $120,000 to six creative tech innovations.
This article shares why we pursued this approach, what we learned, and how these insights can help other sport-for-sustainable-development actors rethink resource allocation.
Why explore new decision-making mechanisms in funding sport for sustainable development?
The O365 Innovation Hub was established with a simple but ambitious goal: to spark transformative innovation in SfSD. Yet, as we listened to partners and practitioners, a familiar challenge kept surfacing — traditional grant-making often feels distant. Decisions can seem opaque, processes happen top-down, and outcomes are sometimes disconnected from the realities of those working closest to communities.
We wanted to challenge that dynamic. What if funding decisions could reflect the voices of those most affected by them? What if the process itself modeled the kind of participation and collaboration that SfSD stands for?
That curiosity led us to experiment with Quadratic Voting and Funding — tools designed to balance influence, promote fairness, and give people a more meaningful say in where resources go.
What is Quadratic Voting and Funding?
At its core, Quadratic Voting is about giving people a richer way to express what matters most to them. Instead of casting a single vote, participants receive a limited number of voting credits, which they can distribute across different options. The more votes they cast for a single idea, the more expensive each one becomes — a built-in safeguard that discourages vote hoarding and ensures that collective voice outweighs concentrated power.
Quadratic Funding takes the same principle and applies it to money. Rather than rewarding the largest donors, it matches community contributions based on the number of unique supporters. In other words, many small voices can outweigh a few big ones — a democratic funding model that values participation as much as resources.
These mechanisms aren’t new to the world, but they’re still novel in SfSD. Globally, they’ve powered a wave of innovation through platforms like Gitcoin and Giveth. UNICEF’s CryptoFund partnered with Gitcoin to back open-source solutions for underserved communities in education and health. And the UNDP used it to fund climate resilience projects in vulnerable regions.
Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, Gitcoin hosted funding rounds that helped accelerate digital public health tools — from contact-tracing apps to resource-sharing platforms. Each example points to the same lesson: quadratic mechanisms can decentralise decision-making, engage communities meaningfully, and unlock new forms of accountability in grant-making.
What was the process?
We began by conducting an in-depth review of platforms such as Gitcoin, The Wellbeing Protocol, Snapshot, and Clr.fund.
Gitcoin offered robust infrastructure and a legacy of successful public goods funding rounds (including with UNICEF and UNDP). However, it required full digital wallet integration and the use of cryptocurrencies, which raised concerns about technical readiness, regulatory compliance, and digital literacy among our 25 Tech365 innovators. To inform our decision, we surveyed the cohort. Responses ranged from enthusiastic early adopters of crypto to those willing to learn, and those who preferred to avoid digital currencies altogether. Several raised concerns about compliance, legal ambiguity in their jurisdictions, and capacity constraints at a critical phase in their development.
After extensive consultations, including with the IOC Olympism365 team, we decided to test only the voting aspect of the quadratic mechanism. We engaged The Wellness Protocol to implement an “off-chain” Quadratic Voting system. This approach maintained the democratic ethos of quadratic decision-making while mitigating risks. It allowed us to:
Avoid the legal and logistical complexities of digital currencies
Involve a wider audience in the voting (IOC staff, summit attendees, innovators themselves, and sport for development practitioners)
Ensure accessibility and inclusivity for all cohort members
What happened?
We launched the Quadratic Voting campaign at the Olympism365 Summit: Sport for a Better World. The Tech365 voting round ran from June 4 - 15. Innovators submitted proposals through a user-friendly interface hosted by The Wellness Protocol. Each voter received a fixed number of credits to allocate across proposals, with the Quadratic Voting algorithm determining prioritisation. 78 people voted from 37 different countries – 50% of voters were O365 Innovation Hub Innovators, 20% were IOC Young Leaders, 8% were Olympism365 Summit attendees, and 21% were from other sport for development ecosystem spaces. The platform was accessible via QR code and web link, and voter authentication measures ensured fairness. The most voted projects received a share of the $120,000 incubation fund.
Results: Who received funding?
Six organisations were awarded funding based on the collective vote:
All In For Sport Consortia (global) – $30,000
Bamako Technologie (Mali) – $23,400
Women Emerging (global) – $31,500
Maria Zambrano (Colombia) – $5,000
Fundacion Gold Sports (Colombia) – $5,000
Positive Impact Events (Denmark) – $25,100
Following the vote, all selected organisations underwent a due diligence process aligned with IOC and O365 Innovation Hub consortium standards before final disbursements.
What were the pros?
People liked transparency: Innovators expressed appreciation for the transparency and inclusivity of the process.
Important voices could be heard: Rather than a select few deciding how the funding should be spent, this approach enabled the participation of people who have dedicated their lives to sport for sustainable development to weigh in on what priorities are for the sector.
There was more equality: Expert opinions were recognised in full breadth – from community leaders to non-profit CEOs. This approach equalised the influence and allowed space for non-traditional experts to provide their inputs.
What were the cons?
Digital readiness varies greatly: While there is interest in Web3 solutions, capacity, infrastructure and legal limitations vary across geographies and organisation types, making the options for its use limited in a truly global project.
Visibility can influence decisions: Some users noted that projects with early visibility might have attracted more votes simply because they were at the top of the list. This potentially creates a feedback loop where popularity begets more popularity, potentially overshadowing equally strong but less prominent submissions.
Due care and attention to detail may not have been possible: With 25 different innovations to read about, there was no guarantee that voters would take the due care and attention to look through different innovations and understand them in fuller detail, potentially limiting the level of understanding voters had of each project.
What else did we learn?
Digital readiness needs to be addressed in future rounds: To create truly democratic and equitable voting systems, it’s important that people understand how processes work. The huge variance of digital readiness needs to be addressed to better engage with a quadratic voting and funding system.
Future iterations should randomise displays: To mitigate the challenge of visibility prominence, creating more popularity, future iterations should include randomised display orders and other user experience interventions to prevent bias.
Delivering a quality standard process could prevent inequity: Feedback suggested that Quadratic Voting could be complemented by expert or committee input to ensure balanced outcomes. This hybrid model could address equity gaps and ensure projects meeting minimum due diligence thresholds are not overlooked.
Strategic staging is essential: Starting with Quadratic Voting before moving to full Quadratic Funding was the right decision. It allowed us to test participation, systems, and sentiment in a low-risk setting while building a pathway to future innovation.
What’s next: Towards a full Quadratic Funding round?
Buoyed by the success of this pilot, the O365 Innovation Hub consortium is considering what a full Quadratic Funding round would look like. This would include onboarding training, technical support, and a matching pool co-financed by external funders. Our vision is to work towards a participatory funding ecosystem for sport for development that is transparent, global, and aligned with the values of Olympism.
The Tech365 Quadratic Voting pilot was a first-of-its-kind technical experiment in sport for sustainable development, and we have plenty of learnings to take on board. This pilot represents a shift in how we think about resource allocation in our sector. By involving the community, reducing bias, and rewarding breadth of support, we can design fairer, more inclusive funding ecosystems that better serve the communities we aim to impact. As such, we welcome continued dialogue, critique, and collaboration as we continue to learn and innovate.
About the Olympism365 Innovation Hub
The Olympism365 Innovation Hub, launched by the IOC with Beyond Sport and Women Win, has played a catalytic role in enabling innovation at multiple levels, through supporting community-rooted initiatives, social enterprise models, cross-sector coalitions, and emerging technologies (Olympism365 Innovation Hub consortium leads: Women Win and Beyond Sport). By supporting diverse actors with flexible funding, convening opportunities, and shared infrastructure, the Olympism365 Innovation Hub has created a platform where innovation can be tested, refined, and scaled.
Cover Photo Credit: Special Olympics Österreich, Tech365 Innovator