Well, the devil is in the details.

Venezuela tried to make their "petro" (PTR) token become a currency. It failed. I didn't follow it closely so don't know the particular reason(s), but that outcome was not a surprise.

But let's say the Central African Republic implements a 'production sharing" / royalty scheme where 10% of the production (i.e., the value of the commodity at the time it is produced) goes to the state. So the state has future revenue stream that they would like to spend today. To do so using traditional methods, they would likely have to take a huge discount -- due to all kinds of risks.

So if they expect $10M of revenue from this type of mining in 2023, for example, they could sell 1 million of the tokens and maybe see buyers willing to pay $7 each (i.e., raising $7M today). If that revenue comes in at $10M, the tokenholders see a 42% ROI for holding the token. If that revenue comes in at $5M (e.g., energy crisis causes the mining company to go bankrupt mid-year, or whatever), then the token holder sees a ~30% loss on investment.

The difference is that with a token, the country gets nearly all of the revenue (the $7M) up front and without the middleman, and open to a wider field of investors. If forced to make a sale the traditional methods, maybe they get only $4M (of the $10M expected revenue), and the investors put in $5M, yielding $1M for the middleman who secured the funding.

So it's not really a shitcoin, it's simply pre-selling of an expected future revenue stream -- something nearly every large organization does today. Just that it is being done with a token (with a higher number of speculator investors), versus a contract with a tiny handful of speculator investors.