- Art transactions: registry of origin and property transfers for any object (with authenticated certificate), currently done by lawyers & auction houses (costly, inefficient, painful, near-impossible in some cases)
- International shipping: INCOTERMS, currently handled through various specialized intermediaries (costly, inefficient, painful)
- Registry of operations over the life of a company (creation/address change/acquisitions/foreclosure), currently done by national commerce courts & accredited local newspapers (costly, inefficient, painful)
- Wills: self-authentication of one's will preventing repudiation attempts by third parties, currently done by lawyers and witnesses (costly, inefficient, painful)
- Escrow accounts for service providers (ex freelancers) through multisig wallets (inefficient)
To me blockchain in Art is less useful as a way to prove some ex-nihilo ownership than as an unalterable chain of ownership transfers. Of course that works as long as noone gets their hands on Musée du Louvre's private keys.
Anything that performs a function inefficiently can be a problem waiting to be solved.
What I’m asking for is a concrete example of a societal problem (something inefficient, costly, painful, or impossible) that blockchain addresses.