As a concept, anonymizing vote on DHF proposals could offer more freedom to everyone to do what they want with their vote without assuming it publicly (which is what we do on legislative/local/presidential elections). So, there could bring out more voters who would like to keep their option private. Maybe... I don't know if it would be better or not to have not publicly assumed votes.

The other aspect is the technical one. It's one thing to have one person one vote, another to have a stakeweighted vote, where anonymity could easily be broken by matching HP to votes. That, of course, if things wouldn't go deeper, and the actual vote stake isn't obfuscated, but that would lead to many controversies and maybe making it hard to verify if votes are accurate and calculated properly.

So yeah, I guess the first step would be the option to have voting for and against instead of only for plus a threshold. But there are many reforms that are needed at a more granular level, that gives more power to the voters on releasing payments at delivery or milestones (this would be one type of project, others can't be fit into this category of projects - for example paying for some infrastructure operational costs, or for the HBD stabilizer).