Blockchain/Crypto technologies are not fixing the "trust" problem. They are enabling the tying of contracts to enforcement via currency without the cost of lawyers, bankers, and sheriffs. The problem in not achieving trust always comes down to getting the external world to merge with the blockchain contracts. In other words, there is "trust" only inside the cyber system, not in the real world. Take the example of a crypto-currency. It is a specific and special type of contract that is between the blockchain and its users, whereas all the other contracts may not involve a fixed rule that is married to the blockchain protocol. The non-currency contracts are just interested in using the blockchain "protocols"/language to execute contracts. Even when setting aside the problems of 51% attacks, inherent errors, lazy core developers, and rollbacks by core developers with or without consent of the community, we can't trust the value of bitcoin over time due to there being no external connection except users perception of its value on exchanges. Even across space the value is not stable because a "dollar" is not worth the same in all places (purchasing power parity, McDonald's hamburger standard, etc). This is not a problem the blockchain can solve without resorting to an M of N system that resorts to trusted oracles such as a basket of commodities as measured and reported by large exchanges, which is only a higher degree of trust rather than absolute, but still subject to political, technological, hacking, or financial influence affecting the oracles or the exchanges they are looking at in London, New York, Chicago, and Hong Kong.
The trust issue can be solved if the cost of verifying transactions can be hard-coded into the blockchain protocol as a fixed percent of the value of the transactions. The Fed thinks 2% annual inflation is a good thing, and actually since debt erasure has always been the solution to broken economies, 2% inflation as a slow debt erasure may not be a bad idea. Jews used "Jubilee" to do this every 50 years. New Kings usually came to power as a result of economic crises and immediately erased all debts to get rid of old power structures (like BANKS and existing GOVERNMENT, aka "lords"). It worked well for everyone at the end of WW2 and not doing it at the end of WW1 is what caused WW2.
OK, so 2% annual value of the total amount of transactions on the blockchain could be the "tax" imposed by the blockchain to support it's computational and security costs. Not taken out of transactions, but new money created. Transactions are free, but wealthy coin holders are taxed if they are just hoarding and not participating in the economy, as it should be. Bitcoin idealism is a dream of the wealthy and a nightmare for the poor and indebted. "Tax" is the right word because the ultimate goal is for the blockchain to replace government, banks, and enforcement personnel with a much smaller group of computer technologists, as is occurring in all other sources of employment because brains are the last remaining foot-hold humans have as useful entities in the free market.
2% inflation is actually a fixed value for the money if the transaction weighted volume increases 2% per year, as the economy improves, or adoption of the currency increases to a larger marketplace. This assumes hoarding as a result of speculation in an big increase in future transaction volume is not occurring (as in bitcoin's history so far). This increase use of the currency by the marketplace has been the key to U.S. success since WW2, and its impending nightmare if all those dollars come home in a sovereign debt crisis due to our abuse of that power (ability to "enslave" other countries at a lower cost, thereby losing our real-world useful employment and switching to non-productive employment such as services, banking, military, and government).
Server node operating payments could be more or less than 2%, fixed to the expansion of the weighted transaction volume, so the technologists win or lose if the "economy as measured by transactions" wins or loses, and there would be no inflation or deflation. This keeps contracts valid in terms of value for all future time, but this rigid enforcement of the "debt" of past blockchain contracts does not have any good historical precedents as I explained above. To solve the problem of having to choose between inflation and lords, the measurement of the transaction action volume would need to be multiplied by happiness per median person, so that if happiness goes down, the wealthy lose. So they should spend their money on investments that increase the happiness of all. The measurement of happiness would be another M of N system of contracts and oracles, that somehow strongly guards against political (money) influence. In the real world we use a separate currency called 1 vote per person to try to make this happen. The only way I see to make this happen is for a biometric security device to lock each person's DNA to the awareness of the blockchain system of voting if not a wider range of contracts. Voting would merely be saying if your happiness or unhappiness increased or decreased since the last vote, or by joining a separate DAO (local, regional, or state government). In the nested hierarchy of competing governments, those improving their citizen's happiness the most could be copied, or expand in citizens directly.
Trust will be achieved if the median happiness per citizen of the DOA on the blockchain is increasing. Not if the wealthy are made more powerful as in the bitcoin and gold systems. Not if there is inflation such that wage and price contracts are invalidated over time (or space as in other countries). Not if stable value is achieved at the expense of monopolies and externalities (like pollution) or an increasing wealthy class.