I think it's largely been demonstrated to be mostly pointless, even in the world of cryptocurrency. What problem do you think it solves that can't already be solved in a better way?

There is therefore nothing to be gained by stuffing a blockchain into the solution. The government can host a database if it wants searchable contracts. Absolutely no need for the complexity and high overhead of a distributed, decentralized system.

The purpose of blockchain is to be able to record things in a decentralized way without reliance on a third party authority (ie. the government).

The thing you're talking about (a contract) only has meaning in the context of "the government." It is "the authority" as regards contracts.

Let's see. Who is the beneficiary?

Adding a token doesn't reduce fraud, it adds another fraud vector.

These are all problems that got hashed out on r/bitcoin and dismissed ten years ago.

But they keep coming back over and over like that one unmated sock.

* you lost the token
* I stole your token
* A new contract was signed but didn't get tokenized
Etc

Nothing supercedes the *actual contract.*

None of the benefits you described require a blockchain. Counties all over the country have searchable title databases.

Tokenization merely adds a layer of complexity because - and I need you to hear this Mark - *the token of a contract can never be more authoritative than the actual contract.*

Except the *actual contract* is authoritative, not the record on the blockchain.

The problem of not having any good use cases for blockchain.

It's funny that people think the blockchain will revolutionize ownership of things.

So I take your private key and now I own your house. Cool!

YOU CAN PULL IT APART WITH YOUR BARE HANDS!

Daniel Ek is an enemy to artists and Spotify is a blight on music. Choose any other platform.

Yes! And, The Dark is Rising. Pretty scary stuff in there.