Given there is little interest for it on the forum, and none of the wallet are broadcasting the vote to ZEC holders at large, I assume the number of transparent votes will be low.
However, in addition to protecting the anonymity of wallets, we need to protect the transparent vote from a Sybil attack. That is because the reviewing method is manual so it is important that the time of people reviewing the vote is respected.
To protect the anonymity of wallet holders, I suggest votes (signed messages) are sent to a shielded wallet where the viewing key is shared with the community so anyone can review the votes. The character limit being 512 if not mistaken, should be plenty. The format could be as simple as this:
$voteDetails
$address
$signature
The extra line in between will make it easier easier to review visually.
Example (ignore invalid signature):
1A; 2E Let’s make more Zcash Swag; 3Y
t1VydNnkjBzfL1iAMyUbwGKJAF7PgvuCfMY
ICrKSQjLORZP/aUTluyf2sZXXK+HuKtxdBLt2RRCn2j5CxgZlccNmiMC2K104JuhHnvHd5cXgSzdZtGh9vgWAYA=
To protect from a Sybil attack, I suggest a payment of 1 ZEC is sent along with the vote. Anything less than 1 ZEC would therefore be ignored.
The wallet would be generated and controlled by a trusted member of the community, same person that would share the viewing key with the community. Would you accept this role @aquietinvestor ?
Just like the shielded vote, we’ll need something like four independent reviewers.
The accumulated ZEC of the vote could be split between the selected reviewers as a stipend for their work; it’s probably not going to be much. Hopefully the vote gets Sybil attacked with 10,000 votes, making super worth it to be a reviewer.
I would like to apply myself but I have now created a conflict of interest, as I could earn ZEC out of this. I am therefore applying as a reserve reviewer. Hopefully we can find four people to review this vote, but if we’re short, then I’m here.