Another good article. But as you no doubt failed to notice it is about GROUP decision-making.
It says nothing about individuals making their own choices in the market.
Being about GROUP decision-making, it is relevant to decisions about the public good. The examples they give are deciding on the best rail service or marriage equality.
The authors also suggest it could be useful in regard to GROUP decisions about private goods, such as making a GROUP decision about a new fizzy drink.
The original paper also suggests that the larger the group the more likely the decision will reflect the genuine interests of the group.
I think quadratic voting is an interesting idea that has nothing to do with allocating your own tax dollars, or optimizing the allocation of private goods and services.
It is about the GROUP decision-making process
In the case of public goods, with the GROUP decision made, the tax pool can then be spent with the greatest confidence that expenditure on the chosen alternative will reflect the genuine wishes of those most impacted.
I have no problem with such an approach, in principle, as long as there is a way to prevent the rich gaming the system. I’ve not read the full paper yet so I can’t say if that’s the case.