Australian here: on my last house sale, I did a deal with the agent where if he got a price above a quite-high threshold that he would get 3% instead of his usual rate. This was seen as a remarkably generous offer, unheard of in the industry.
I've only once seen someone use a buying agent: husband and wife were both hospital doctors with three young active kids and they figured they valued their time enough that they would pay for a real estate agent to short-list properties for them.
I wonder what is so much more difficult about real estate in the USA that it requires so much more in the way of services.
Kind of an aside; what's the motivation for buyer's agents to get good inspectors or the lowest price possible? They're getting a percentage and they're motivated to make sure the deal falls apart. Although, as a buyer it's not like I knew good inspectors, anyway. The best I could do is read their sample reports and go off of my own (sparse) knowledge of home construction.
Also, agents for basic residential purchases where the property is about as mundane as it gets provide very little value. However good agents will do proper diligence by inspecting the public records for the property. That part may be disruptable with software and an ambitious enough records maintenance effort. But good agents who do their jobs properly are well worth 6% (and, by the way, that 6% is frequently split two ways, so each agent gets 3%). Of course my bar for "good agent" is much higher than Joe Coldwell or Jane Keller-Williams. "Good" agents know local and state regulations very well and do diligence to inspect the public record and work closely with well qualified inspectors to get the best (lowest for buyer, highest for seller) price they can. Most agents, especially for "big box" brokers do basic humdrum contract paperwork and have a very basic approach to disclosure and negotiation and don't add much value. They're ripe for disruption.