The problem is that a blockchain can only trustlessly and verifiably encode things that are wholly represented on-chain. As soon as you bridge it to anything in the real world you're relying on some degree of trust, and trustlessness is all-or-nothing.
That's why only proper un-backed-by-anything cryptocurrencies actually make any sense - they're wholly on-chain. On the other hand their value flails around wildly like a balloon you forgot to tie off and that limits their practical value to basically nothing. Their monetary policy is in the hands of some un-elected group of randos accountable only to their own enrichment.
Stablecoins: who knows whether they're redeemable? You just have to trust the issuer and the legal system. They also get frozen all the time - Tether freezes more tokens than anyone and there's zero process and probably zero backing. Even Circle/USDC lied about their backing.
Deeds on the blockchain: not your keys not your house? Ok, no thanks? If you have to rely on the court to have final say then the real world diverges from the chain and of course then why even have a chain?
The iron law of blockchain is "if you think the blockchain is a good solution to any given problem you either don't know enough about the blockchain or you don't know enough about the problem."
It's not clear they're anything more than a technological curiosity that's been coopted by anarchocapitalist libertarian grifters.