That's true but I think governments are more likely to go back to the gold standard (and claim they actually have the gold to back it up) than to adopt Bitcoin. Almost every government plan for their own crypto seems to insist on backing it with a physical asset, for example Venezuela's sham petrocrypto.
Stable coins are a win-win solution not only to overcome crypto volatility problems but also for the interests of a country that often feels scared by the decentralized bitcoin system. A stable coin whose gold collaterals should have a certain amount of gold is the same as the crypto that was made.
Gold reserves should be owned by the central bank in the form of gold bars or contractual rights, but there are Some countries' gold reserves are only calculated based on asset audits and are not already mined or have become gold bars. In accordance with the concept of a sovereign wealth fund whose principal is who has the gold, he is sovereign, far above the currency of any country.
Based on an audit of precious metal assets contained in the bowels of a country (not yet mined) the country issues securities (state securities). With state securities, the central bank can print 10x 100x money from securities. So the money create depends on the policies of each government.
If the government makes gold-backed cryptocurrency but it's not tied to the actual gold value as collateral, then this is not a cryptocurrency expected by their people.