The following idea is a flawed design as it is part of the unfiltered governance incentives which is not sybil resistant and very prone to spam.
Giving minted rewards to voters causes spam which Dfinity’s Internet Computer has already faced due to the fact that the IC vote incentives are generated by inflation (i.e. minted)
Unless there is a centralized entity providing anti-sybil blacklists (in the IC case Dfinity itself and Dfinity splinter entities like the ICA) this idea will only entail spam attacks and non-governance participant holder dilution something never presented on the tokenomics of the DOT token.
Bear in mind that dramatic tokenomic changes such as these have been causes of heavy concern on other chains and dapps.
Unless a robust design for those changes is introduced then only foreign token drops to voters should be tried and tested first.
The counterexample these accounts are gonna use is Jupiter which is a dapp governance token and tokenomics differ significantly from economic security as well as deeper liquidity on exchanges and price significantly hence the IC is a more appropriate comparison.
The unique flavor of this proposal at this late state of Polkadot tokenomics is that it will be punitive for non-governance participants and it will have the side effect of wealth redistribution more than anything. Something that shouldn’t be encouraged as this only has one possible outcome (Already explored by Juno on the blockchain case outside “real life economics”). These designs have to come early in the tokenomics in order to not disturb many of the participants who may not want to participate in later experiments. A lot of value is at stake, literally as economic security as well as tokenomics assurances. As of now the DOT token purpose is economic security and governance. So this has to be threaded carefully.