If the company in your example can be contacted to overturn ownership, essentially degenerating the immutability and irreversibility of the ledger to levels comparable of existing solutions, then what is the actual advantage of this not only inefficient, but inefficient by design method of bookkeeping?
I find it hard to reconcile "99.9% of transfers very cheap" with the property that at least proof-of-work and proof-of-space actively rely on literally counteracting any effort at becoming more efficient.
"Classical" distributed ledgers in databases are not already more efficient by several orders of magnitude, they are made more efficient through advancements of technology, and those efficiency gains are actively sought out by participants, given that they usually directly translate into profit through reduction of overhead.
I find it hard to reconcile "99.9% of transfers very cheap" with the property that at least proof-of-work and proof-of-space actively rely on literally counteracting any effort at becoming more efficient.
"Classical" distributed ledgers in databases are not already more efficient by several orders of magnitude, they are made more efficient through advancements of technology, and those efficiency gains are actively sought out by participants, given that they usually directly translate into profit through reduction of overhead.