When I first heard of this, I was also quite intrigued. But I wonder if it might actually be vulnerable to some of the darker patterns of human 'social markets' if implemented in its freest form; we already have something that has the structure, if not the character, of a liquid democracy: Twitter. In such a system, people with a lot of allocated votes would end up with considerable de-facto power that would nonetheless be constantly volatile to emotional outburst no-confidence tectonics if you were allowed to re-allocate your vote at any time/the voting distribution was monitored in real time. You'd also almost certainly end up with Zipfian popularity gravity wells where some representatives were more popular simply because they're more popular, perhaps without genuine merit.
This is important to note, thank you. Our social nature (and dark it can be) must be accounted for in policy decisions... better than it has been recently.
I would like to know of examples in the blockchain world that people would call successful.
The closest one I know is Dash and budget proposals.
I did not say it was successful, quite the opposite, they drove people away with their extremism
https://handshake.org is the only good use case I know of, but their success is still widely unknown. It largely depends on how they play with ICANN
I also understand that Hyperledger is having some success, but the cryptokiddies really don't like that (realistic) implementation.
The biggest issue with blockchain projects is that they want to create some new order rather than participating in the existing society, and by doing so, artificially limit themselves.
I wonder how we could test it out for elections? It likely needs to start small or in the private sector, or post-revolution would give opportunity to rewrite laws in a major way