The problem with claiming that you have an asset to back your coin is that the regulators demand proof that the asset exists. Tether for example has got into trouble for not being able to prove it is backed by a reserve of dollars.
I wasn't aware of Tether's problems, but I'm not surprised. I don't really follow or care about stablecoins much, because I don't think they're interesting and they really aren't necessary. They generate a lot of discussion around here, but for the life of me I can't understand what all the hype is about.
We don't need any cryptocurrency backed by anything. There just isn't a need for it IMO, and it kind of goes against the spirit of cryptocurrency, not to mention that concepts like the gold standard are almost archaic these days. We've been using fiat backed by nothing more than a government's reputation for many years now and usually it works fine.
If you want gold, buy physical gold--not a cryptocurrency presumably backed by gold, which could be a scam. Failing that, you could always buy "paper gold" or invest in mining stocks or something similar. This concept of crypto backed by a physical asset just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.