> Your entire argument depends on something that does not really exist, a ‘trusted centralized system.’ Of course there is, what do you call the NASDAQ or the

> Your entire argument depends on something that does not really exist, a ‘trusted centralized system.’ Of course there is, what do you call the NASDAQ or the NYSE? Those are trusted centralized systems that work just fine every day and process more transactions than any blockchain can hope to acheieve. > a smart contract sacrifices speed and cost but eliminates the need for trust No it doesn't in any meaningful way. I need to trust that my tokens will be recognized as a legal share of ownership in the property, all the smart-contract can do is give me confidence that the tokens are not counterfeit or double-spent, but this is obviously a non-issue with our current centralized system. Nobody is concerned about counterfeit Apple stock. There is no benefit to using a smart-contract because it does not solve a problem (in this case). Are there situations where a smart-contract could be useful? Probably, but attempting to tokenize the equity of your home is not one of them and you've completed failed to demonstrate otherwise.