IMO a government crypto is not a true Crypto, just as a centralised crypto is not a crypto. By being managed by a government, the main benefits of trustless transaction, limited or fixed supply are lost [...]
Your post made me think about a funny scenario.
What if Venezuela launches the Petro ... and there's a community takeover?If the Petro is a real cryptocurrency with a blockchain like we know (and it seems so), then also hard-forks are theoretically possible.
Now imagine that the government takes a measure that is not popular among users (like a "demurrage", or a higher inflation rate). Now two scenarios could happen:
1) The change is implemented as a hard fork. A group could then simply continue to use the old client, and the change would not come into effect for them.
2) The change is implemented as a soft fork, or by another mechanism not requiring a hard fork (e.g. the government has some kind of "master key" to change certain parameters). A group could then develop a "hard-forking client", like Bitcoin Cash did, and we had a "community version" of the Petro with the old parameters.
The government, obviously, in theory could use a proprietary software license to forbid forks. But even in this case the client could simply be implemented in an alternative way. So the only way to forbid forks would be laws outlawing forks - and even then, Venezuelans could use clients from developers from other countries that forked the coin.
![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)