I agree. I have been toying with the idea of a system where you have a set of participants who each have responsibilities for maintaining some state that users and other participants rely on. For example, a network of banks including a central bank, but the network could also include merchants who rely on the banks for payments and trusted third parties who keep track of agreements such as loan contracts. Instead of putting everything on a blockchain, make each participant be the sole writer for one or more ledgers (e.g. one ledger per account they maintain) and use a non-repudiable two-phase commit protocol to coordinate multiple transactions performed atomically across ledgers.

Using the techniques from certificate transparency, as soon as a participant has published that they have performed a transaction on their ledger, then they cannot take that back again without an auditor finding out. They also cannot branch their ledgers (i.e. double spend) as long as all participants periodically gossip received transactions to the auditors. Or rather, they CAN, but the auditor will detect it eventually and have proof of it. What you get is a sort of multi-party SWIFT-like messaging system which doesn't require banks to change their basic accounting infrastructure and tokenize everything.