I was reading the bitcoin wiki on myths and I completely agree that Bitcoin has the advantage of limited in supply like gold but it's a lot convenient and secure to use then gold. However, if you read further, one of the myth they are trying to debunk is
Bitcoins are worthless because they aren't backed by anything
and they debunk with the argument
One could argue that gold isn't backed by anything either. Bitcoins have properties resulting from the system's design that allows them to be subjectively valued by individuals.
However, I think the biggest difference is that gold is backed up by governments all around the world. All governments owns a huge sum of gold assets since it's been passed on generations after generations, so there is a huge motivation for the government to make the market subjectively perceive gold as valuable.
On the other hand, Bitcoin is only backed up by smart developers and early adopters. Governments owns of non of it and they can't control it like fiat currencies so they hate it. Countries like China even go to the extreme to outlaw trading cryptocurrencies in general. It makes logical sense for the US and EU governments to eventually follow China's steps to outlaw cryptocurrencies since it's to their advantage, Bitcoin's price will plummet when that day happens.
One could argue that the governors in US and EU are elected by a democratic process, but I would say the general public doesn't understand what Bitcoin is and they wouldn't care whether this candidate supports Bitcoin or not when they are voting.
It seems to me that in order for cryptocurrencies to succeed it needs to get the government on board somehow, but at the same time one of the biggest sell point of cryptocurrencies is they are not controllable by any central authority.
Is there any flaws in my arguments and logic?