Although it might be too late of a response, I noticed this proposal on Snapshot and believe the reasoning provided by @lbsblockchain is too one-sided.
I agree that it’s a net positive to allow for this type of experimentation as @MarcZeller mentioned but there could be volatile precedents set in place with the widespread acceptance of shielded voting.
There are already multiple examples of highly contested proposals being swayed a certain way because of an entity’s increased voting power:
Sushi Kanpai | Uniswap BNB.
Their individual outcomes aside, the ability of the average voter to be fully aware of where deciding factors in a vote are coming from as well as align a voter’s actions with their public outlook is an important factor of governance that shouldn’t be restricted.
Take the below comment into consideration:
There is an undoubtedly strong impact on group voting when participants view larger entities engaging in governance. However, I feel as if protecting/shielding this engagement would advance the negative side of token voting compared to the positive benefits explained in the OP.
In one of the above-mentioned voting examples, there were instances where an entity became very outspoken about community support and its outlook on the protocol. During voting, this same entity voted against the general community even after stating otherwise.
From my viewpoint, this is where shielded voting would lead. This isn’t to say that protecting participants’ privacy is unimportant, I simply think that in a situation where parties could control a larger majority of voting power, transparency around their identity or standing within the community shouldn’t be hidden.
Another aspect of this that should be considered in greater depth is who determines the eventual success/failure of this shielded voting. The success criteria provided are reasonable, yet moving from an upgraded Snapshot space back to a disabled feature has not been clarified.
If it becomes clear that shielded voting would favor larger entities (and depending on the agreed upon method for including this change), who’s to say this would not become the status quo since these larger entities could vote this change into effect permanently?