The ransomware thing is a red herring. The trust is not related to the counterparty- the trust is in the ledger itself. Once you have the tokens, you know you have them, and as long as your keys are secure, that fact remains true.

That's not the case with any other monetary or payment system or store of value.

You can trust that your balance in your account is what the blockchain says it is, and that nobody but someone in possession of those keys can use it.

is there some widespread issue with trusting the ledgers of banks currently? I wasn't aware that this is a pressing issue, or really an issue at all.

>You can trust that your balance in your account is what the blockchain says it is, and that nobody but someone in possession of those keys can use it.

And there are definite risks around that too.

This really feels like a solution in search of a problem to me.

Some would think so.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/04/paypal-shuts-d...

There are also many restrictions on how, why, when, and where transfers from those accounts can be made. There is no trust in an institution required, because you know the blockchain will carry out your wishes regardless of any other factors.

>carry out your wishes regardless of any other factors.

It will carry out your inputs regardless of other factors. That is a very important distinction, especially in this case.

Yes, some call this "Code is Law" - it is blind to race, social status or how much money you have.