In theory, quadratic funding could be an effective way to support journalism by encouraging a diverse range of people to contribute to creating news and sharing information.

Regardless of their financial resources, a broad spectrum of people can be encouraged to contribute to journalism through quadratic funding. By increasing the diversity of viewpoints and voices in journalism, the quality and usefulness of the information can be improved.

Quadratic financing can encourage journalists to create high-quality content by paying for efforts that garner community support. This incentivizes the production of journalism of the highest caliber. Accuracy, depth and investigative reporting can be encouraged, resulting in better informed, involved citizens.

Large donors who might have predetermined goals or prejudices that could skew journalism’s messages and content can be less influential because of quadratic funding. Quadratic funding can ensure that the allocation is more representative of the community’s views and interests by depending on a wide base of modest donations.

Quadratic fundraising platforms can encourage transparency by making it obvious how donations are distributed and enabling users to follow the development of funded projects. This can boost public confidence in journalism and foster closer ties between journalists and their readers.

While quadratic funding encourages a diverse range of contributors, promotes high-quality content and lessens the influence of large donors, it also has drawbacks, such as difficulty determining the impact of journalism, the possibility of abuse, a lack of diversity, and the need for infrastructure and resources. Notwithstanding these difficulties, quadratic finance has the potential to be a useful instrument for sustaining journalism, but its conception and application need to be carefully thought out.