I think that one of the allures of the blockchain is that it’s publicly visible. This may or may not be a fallacy of reasoning but hey, we’re human.
For example, in Austria we have the "Grundbuch", a register of land ownership. Everyone can inspect the Grundbuch database. Authenticity is guaranteed by requiring a public notary or a court to confirm any changes in the database, and there is a paper trail for every change to a record.
It's boring old tech, but it works, and doesn't have all the gotchas of blockchains.
I can only imagine this ancient system to be a magnitude worse in those regards.
Transaction fees are high by design. They are a form of tax on property transactions that discourages short term investments.
The system works very well and I just don't think it needs fixing.
For the few use-cases that match it, yes.
The name Grundbuch itself puts a limit on its use, but we can imagine that there are many situations that call for the same amount of protection and trust, but which require a far higher throughput.
Back when Grundbuch was set up, ground and estate was probably the most valuable asset peopel can own. Today we have stocks, bonds, contracts, savings, companies, art, private-keys, hell; even cars, that are worth a multiple of a typical meadow in the Austrian hills.
Many of these classes cannot use the a system like Grundbuch because its fees are too high or its throughput too low. No-one wants to pay upwards of €600 just to sell some AAPL stock. No insurance company wants to drive to a notary for each contract they sign and then pay €600 upwards.
I'm not trying to say that blockchain is a solution for all these cases (It isn't). I'm saying that the system is limiting, problematic and unfit for many cases. That therefore, this system is unfit for the majority of cases that would need them 2021 (but for one specific case it works).