i appreciate the clarifications, thank you. i'm familiar with metcalfe's law and not suggesting a deviation from the bitcoin network, but rather using side chains as a means to create smaller parallel networks for local use, dedicated to other tasks other than money management, as i disagree with the notion that "a blockchain is really only useful at proving ownership of and transferring value tokens" ... keeping a rolling database on a distributed blockchain could hypothetically provide an unprecedented form of self-governance, such as for smaller towns and rural communities.

perhaps what i'm describing now is a customizable DAO framework which could be adopted by a community (with everyone running a node for validation) and implemented by trustworthy member of that community - this is where trust would be required on a more personal level to mitigate abuse (e.g. running for mayor in a small town) so it requires trust to implement, and once running, trustless (as every node would be validating all data passing through) ... and this data could vary depending on the case use, but i'm thinking specifically for small town governance, requiring transparency on all things bureaucratic, sheriff/police action, civil complaints filed, etc. (as it's incredible how often corruption happens at the local level) ... i have to imagine that people have an interest in solving these problems as well. if even 1% of the population gets a decent grasp on reading the code, it would make it far more difficult for power to be abused.

i probably posted this wild musing in the wrong place. but thank you @nullcount for the response :)