You now seem to describe law (as the often quoted "code as law" hints at), and that a blockchain could replace law where it's insufficient. Do you agree that in these cases, just having adequate laws would make a blockchain useless?
> The key quality of blockchain is that it allows groups to form consensus. Even though they compete on some matters, all stakeholders want the platform to succeed. If it doesn't, their investment is worthless.
Isn't that a company (or other kind of association) with shareholders? That's not specific to a blockchain, is it?
> There are other problems that need registries where there is no party with incentive and means to act as the state does above.
Either there are common financial incentives for stakeholders to agree on a registry (you can sell for a higher price if consumers know what they're buying quality products), and it will happen eventually. Or there are none, and it won't. In both cases, having a blockchain does not bring anything. Wine is I think a bad example given that there is already labels such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellation_d%27origine_contr%.... This specific label seems to have its own law, but as soon as you have something resembling trademark law you can have such a label, even if it's designed by a private association of producers. It has its own problems, but I can't think of any that are solved by the use of a blockchain.
To summarize, I do agree with you that we should trace production, quality, and better registries can bring a lot. But there is no blockchain in this discussion, so I don't see how you connect the two.
Just think about the few comments you wrote in this thread, and what you wish would exist in terms of registries, "synthetic state", and so on. How does removing "blockchain" from this equation make any of what you wrote impossible or even slightly harder?