My intitial thoughts on this is that it will be difficult to incentivize voting in way that does not encourage band-wagoning.
I think we need individuals to consider and vote based on their own opinion (hopefully informed).
So I think rewards based upon the outcome of the vote are a no-go.
A worker proposal that pays out from a fund an amount proportional to how many voted maybe?
Perhaps the funds are paid out weighted in such a way that being first to vote earns you more money.
The fund could hold, say, 10k bts.
The % of this 10k that will be paid out is equal to the total amount of stake that votes.
If 60% of all stake participates in a vote, then 60% of the 10k bts is paid out.
50% of the fund pays out to the first 5% of stake that voted, and then lower amounts trailing off until the last stake to vote gets a small but worthwhile amount.
This would mean that those already voted are incentivized to encourage others to vote, as the total prize pot paid out would increase in size, and they are going to be getting the lions share of it.
If the prize-pot didnt increase with the % of stake voting, then already-voters have no reason to share the prize with new voters, and they may even discourage others from voting.
Notes: Voting may be at random times.
Could there be a prize-pot for every single vote? (No)
Can voting stake be identified on the blockchain? (I think yes)
Is voting worth incentivizing?
I think this may be another 'wait and see' issue. If voting works fine anyway then there's no point wasting money on it.
Large stakeholders should care enough to vote in the best interest of their investment.
So if any incentivization is needed it should probably be spent on the little-guy.
How useful is the vote of the small players in a shareocracy?