[joe_the_user]

Indeed,

The one example is simply securitizing a work of art, "with the blockchain", where naturally a blockchain is no more useful than a simple contract since blockchains don't guarantee action in the real world.

Which is to say blockchains could never do what the article claims, as you'd expect. It reminds me of people selling digital paper-clips in the 1980's.

[hammerbrostime]

Digital paper-clips? Could you explain what that is? I didn't get any results via Google.

[tim333]

Funnily enough I googled it too and Google now brings up your question about digital paper-clips.

[rahimnathwani]

Yes. The only advantage I can see for a blockchain (vs. a simple contract) is that shares could be transferred anonymously, rather than requiring legal paperwork (which would reveal the name of the seller and of the purchaser). So perhaps useful for money launderers, or as an alternative to money launderers.