A good question, if you can it could be abused depending on its configuration.
I would suggest you could use delegation when too busy if you do not want your vote to go into the pool - but having your vote go into the pool can be beneficial, when you come back you will have a lot of political capital to apply on issues you care about (depending on how deflation is worked out).
I love talking about all these ideas, but personally its more for intellectual stimulation/fun, I think the real work needs to be in getting the candidates elected. I have mentioned before, all this systematic design talk will be for naught if the population rejects the system once they have DD.
If wanting a test of DD there are running programs out there, eg PollyWeb for pure DD, Liquid Feedback (@christinekent made a link to them in another thread earlier today) for delegated DD, anyone with a server could fire up an instance, or play with their public test system to get a feel for it? True they might not be tweakable to specific requirements, like what is public/private, but that in itself could be a big task to set up if ultimately Max and Nathan are not going to implement it ..?
Did you see my original post/explanation? I too was having trouble with this but I think I have got my head around it. As far as DD-vs-IBDD or LD-vs-IBDD, I think the same thinking can be applied. What IBDD achieves is a greater chance of change, and with change comes the opportunity to test more solutions, which is where the greater progress comes from, this increase in dynamism exists against both DD and LD because it comes from the trading/token system. Systematically I see LD as basically the same as pure DD (maybe these two are different in which demographics end up having their votes counted but that would be related to the make up/psychology of society rather than because of the system).
I am not sure as I don't recall seeing any comments linking tokens to decentralization, my understanding is the tokens/trading create a cost in voting for any policy, and this encourages specialization.
I don't actually like the word specialization in this context, to me the result is channelling people into only voting on things they are passionate about, not necessarily what they are skilled at, but maybe that is what is meant when referring to "specialization"? Or maybe there is an assumption people will be passionate about what they are skilled at? For me this assumption gets a bit complicated because I feel there is policy that requires a skill set (eg how to achieve increased but safe energy production), and then there is policy that is moral in nature (eg pro-life/pro-choice), I feel everyone should have equal say on moralistic policy, but specialization would benefit skill set policy.
I could see that you could create a decentralized method of categorizing issues by allowing for people to vote on the categorization, any manipulation would be publicly apparent, but its adding an extra level of complexity, there are probably simpler ways of getting workable results - that is if IBDD incorporates per-category delegation, I am not clear on that yet.
Definitely, hopefully the end product will function relatively simply - not sure as it is being designed by blockchain gurus, but we can hope.
(ps I think you mean Max not Mark?)