[spinchange]

Things like deeds and titles aren't necessarily locked away without visibility but are necessary to prove ownership in a court of law, the venue where doing that is most consequential. Technologically, it's redundant and unecessary to maintain shared ownership records of everyone else's assets. Practically, if you don't trust the state / your representative government to maintain & adjudicate property ownership rights or contract law disputes, it's a little silly to think conveniences like checking ubiquitous apps on mobiles or the internet itself will still work and that we won't be experiencing the complete breakdown of society by that point.

[DennisP]

We're not talking about replacing the register of deeds here, and the government isn't going to maintain ownership records of random collectibles.

We trust online brokerages to maintain our ownership on securities with databases alone, but those are heavily regulated. The government isn't likely to enact regulation on baseball cards and action figures either.

So for safety we're pretty much down to paper documentation and a cumbersome sale process. That's slow and expensive, which is why rich people do it and regular people don't. Until now.

I don't see why people think blockchains have to exclusively do new and unprecedented things. It's productive to do old things more efficiently.

[spinchange]

It's not really physical collectibles that need this, it's digital ones. (Physical collectibles have popularly accepted professional grading services that authenticate and certify) So then I guess the question is why isn't a central database maintained by a trusted authority (ies) just as good as a blockchain maintained by everyone?