Trustless/trust-lite blockchains are a strong fit for many applications, but far from proportionate to the number of applications being attempted. Take, for ex

Trustless/trust-lite blockchains are a strong fit for many applications, but far from proportionate to the number of applications being attempted. Take, for example, property titles on the blockchain. Sounds promising. But property rights are ultimately enforced by governments (namely, the government that projects control over the area on which the property sits) through their legal systems. In this case, for the majority of reasonable threat models, blockchains add complexity without adding value. Say that your wallet is holding a title token. I hack your computer and use your private key to transfer the token to my wallet. According to the blockchain, I am now the rightful of the property. However, it's very unlikely that your government would recognize me as the owner. The government wouldn't let me move all my stuff over and start living there just because the property token is in my wallet. The blockchain state and de facto/de jure state have diverged. Similarly, say the government becomes tyrannical and begins seizing property. The property token in your wallet will, once again, not save you. You will be jailed. The "code is law" of blockchains becomes redundant to the "law is law" of governments.