There is a difference in that the trust is now distributed as opposed to centralized. > you have to trust whoever initially put the information on the blockcha

There is a difference in that the trust is now distributed as opposed to centralized. > you have to trust whoever initially put the information on the blockchain In all of those cases, that trust is already inherent in the documents filed by the entities/institutions. But the thing is, they also become gatekeepers of those records (e.g. titles) which seems to be a great use case for a distributed system. > and also that nothing happened later to the real world entity that wasn't captured on the blockchain This is also the case with paper records; your car title isn't automatically tied to whether your car is totaled or sold. You update the record based on a change in the status of the material object it represents whether it is a paper or digital update or a blockchain update. > they are horrible use cases for blockchain I'd disagree; having an immutable record of ownership is valuable; especially so in countries where a centralized institution may not be trustworthy. Especially with transactions around something like a car where there are multiple entities that are reliant on the record (your state DMV (and multiple sub-agencies), an electronic toll vendor, your insurance provider, your loan provider, maybe your landlord for an assigned parking space), having a distributed ledger to access and immutably modify the data would be a boon. For titles on homes which are subject to liens, it would be a great consumer benefit to be able to access this information without paying several hundred dollars for a title search.