Aside from the tracking issue, many assets are extremely difficult to price at market value. Even if you could suppose the value goes up, they pay tax, then the value goes down? There would be horrendous market distortions from a scheme like this, and a flight of capital from the jurisdiction implementing it.

The Netherlands has an asset tax, and it doesn't seem to have that much difficulty with it economically. I suspect your difficulties are overstated and it's roughly no more bothersome than other forms of taxes.

Interesting, it seems to only include fairly easily valued assets which can generate an income such as property and equity. Actually art works under such a scheme would be even more attractive as stores of value, not less, which could be seen as one of the market distortions I was talking about.

Just use the insurance value. Make insurance companies report it, done.

Because it would necessarily involve tracking everything everyone owns?

Or just the insured stuff, from the horse's mouth - insurance companies can spit out database reports to the tax authority.

They could even add the tax amount to the premium and collect both.

Income taxes don't require tracking income, so why would it be necessary for assets?

a usecase where blockchain makes sense? what? <surprised pikachu face>