This is generally a good point. Voters incentive is an important issue and not fully resolved (also depends on use case). But the general answer is that a good DAO should have engaged reputation holders, and I’d even encourage non-engaged reputation holders to lose their reputation.

A bad DAO with no active rep holders will simply die out (and is not really a DAO).

The best incentive for rep holders to vote, in a good DAO, is that they care about it and about its fate and proposals’ results.

Adding economic incentives to voters (which we had in our older versions) seem to make worst game dynamics.

And having non-economic (i.e. reputation) incentives (which we do in the current protocol) is also not very simple from the game dynamics perspective.

Bottom line, there’s no easy answer, but you should think about good DAOs —that will survive over bad DAOs— as DAOs who’ll have caring, active rep holders. (And a good DAO should thus encourage giving rep to those who’re active, and possibly in alignment with the DAO.)