Rename current QV voting system to Quadratic Funding (QF) and introduce Quadratic Voting (QV)

[QYuQianchen]

Expected behavior

Current "quadratic voting" (QV) voting system actually implements the "quadratic funding" (QF) mechanism. Thanks champion @samuveth for the clarification, which I re-post here in case other projects have similar question:

Indeed, there is a distinction between Quadratic Voting (QV) and Quadratic Funding (QF). In QF, a matching amount is allocated quadratically based on the total number of donors or votes. Conversely, QV does not involve a matching amount; instead, the quadratic calculation occurs when users allocate their credits among the different options in a poll.

Regarding the implementation of QV on Snapshot, there are some challenges to consider. Snapshot is designed for token based voting, while QV is most effective with gated voting, where all participants have equal voting power (e.g., 100 credits). As such, we chose to implement the QF funding model, which aligns better with our design. However, we agree that the naming should be clarified, and incorporating true QV should be considered for our future roadmap, especially given its growing significance with features like voting validation (e.g., Gitcoin Passport).

Actual behavior

Results are calculated in QF

Steps to reproduce the behavior

Recalculate and compare results from @hoprnet's governance experiment: https://snapshot.org/#/v03.hopr-dao.eth/proposal/0xe02cd1e68980a1572f03de7d849c5b6c86620d6774f3a652f11069d2ad290ae9