I like the lateral thinking of the OP. However I continue to feel that incentive schemes to vote or not vote will be subject to poor voting behaviour, because you cannot control the quality of the vote.For those who have no real attachment to the outcome of the vote, who would not have voted in the absence of the incentive, their optimal strategy is simply to vote randomly to try to win the incentive - maybe even do this in an automated way - rather than actually do the research and make an informed choice.
There is probably a strong link between the degree of interest or stake in an outcome, and the time that voters are willing to put into votes. So there needs to be a way for those with lower stakes, or less attachment to every individual decision, but still a strong attachment to the broad direction or strategy, to express their views in a convenient way.
I would like to see a system that allows users the option to delegate all their votes to other trusted or like-minded users, with a power of veto. Such delegations could be set by users across all issues, or be separated by the type of issue, and can be revoked or replaced at any time. In this way users without much time for research or voting, but who still want to have their personal philosophy or interests expressed in community decisions, can still easily participate. This may not be a perfect system either, but I think this might create fewer distortions and manipulations than incentive based systems. (I have wondered recently if something like Dynamic Account Permissions could even be used to do this in a very rudimentary form, by delegating control of vote tokens.)