[evgen]

The problem with these examples is that the literature is filled with alternative protocols that accomplish the same task without the deadweight of the blockchain. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem with the added cost of "let's make it anonymous because we are cool" without tangible upside. If you start from the assumption that we are all mutually distrustful, adversarial entities it may make sense, but this does not accurately describe any of the enterprise relationships I have ever been involved with.

[n3x10e8]

To some extent we are mutually distrustful, adversarial entities and to overcome that we employ contracts, compliance , patents etc to minimize the distrust and this adds overhead of lawyers, lenghty paperwork etc. With blockchain we can solve the trust problem via crytographic means more efficiently.

[evgen]

It seems to me that the problem with this answer is that we have already paid the up-front cost of these offline systems over generations and so you are supposing that the switching cost is less than the ongoing maintenance of what already exists. There may be efficiency gains to be realised somewhere, but unless there are incremental and quantifiable advantages at each intermediate step from here to there I can't see this existing outside very small (albeit potentially lucrative) niches.

[brighton36]

Blockchains are ponzis. You need them so that you can offload yourr risk onto the community and exit your project profitably. Non-blockchain investments don't offer that feature.

[blueprint]

Yes they do? Even fiat cash has that feature. So do stocks...