We tried quadratic voting for our team choosing a new name, and we did not find it to work well. I think the analysis that the scheme even converges makes simplifying assumptions that aren't well justified, particularly that everyone knows the marginal probability of each candidate winning (when that itself is behind a fairly inscrutable voting method.) Without that assumption I think it falls apart.

The optimal strategy is to vote maximally for your preferred most likely contender, and maximally against the nearest competitor, but if you don't know who those are, the system provides no means of discovery. So strategic voting is not just possible, it is critical to have any influence, but the evidence needed for optimal strategic voting is neither obvious, nor revealed by the system, (and from our experience I don't think it has any stable Nash equilibria.)

After a few days with the system, we finally abandoned it and switched to a condorcet election.