The paper also doesn&#x27;t talk about whether or not the initial assumptions were true. E.g.:<p>&quot;The ability to delegate voting power allows liquid democracy to scale to large groups as well as representative democracy does. People who have others delegating to them are much like representatives in representative democracy systems, becoming specialists for group decisions and voting with greater power. For example in Figure 2, many people delegate directly or indirectly to person H, making H a powerful delegate. Liquid democracy systems tend to be meritocracies. As a person becomes more of an expert on issues facing the group, more people trust and delegate to them. The increased voting power can incentivize them to further increase their expertise and effectiveness. The opposite effect occurs when the delegate becomes less effective. This feedback process gives accountability and curbs abuses of power.<p>&quot;The ability to change delegations at any time eliminates many election-related distractions and distortions. There is no election-cycle and delegates must continuously prove their worth. And, they can do so in incremental manner, instead of wasting time and energy on all-or-nothing elections.&quot;<p>So OK. Did people actually take back their delegations? How often did people override and vote directly? Did the optimism work out in practice?