Why would the government greenlight decentralized blockchains as a means for transferring smart contracts when they could rake in fees with CBDC?

I was commenting in another thread, but I decided to make this into a separate post instead. There's an argument that cryptocurrencies would make it easier for people to trade assets like cars and real-estate if mass-adopted, which I believe in. For this to happen, and for the contracts to maintain recognition and legitimacy, legislators would have to approve of this (just as they've approved the validity of titles and deeds). This is one of the main use cases for DeFi projects, but I have some questions about government adoption:

Why would governments adopt a DeFi project (like, say, Cardano) as opposed to issuing their own centralized currency (CBDC) where they could maintain power? Why would they side with decentralized projects when they could generate wealth by implementing a centralized cryptocurrency that could still mint smart contracts and generate more revenue via different types of transaction fees? They could have the efficiency of the technology and grease their pockets, too. Aren't on-chain governance and decentralized projects inherently against government interests?

I am all for the freedom provided by decentralization, with some light-handed regulation. I have a novice understanding of blockchain technology, but this just seems like such a big hurdle for the future of mass adoption. It seems like we're waiting for corporatocratic, anti-libertarian governments to willingly remove a money-making paywall between themselves and the people. Do we have that much faith in legislators to oppose traditional banking? Where are the weak points in this line of logic? Thoughts?

TLDR: We're waiting on legislators to sign off on mass adoption, and governments may be inherently against the fundamental purpose of DeFi. With that being said, I'm dumping my entire portfolio into gaming tokens ????

Edits: More clarity/accuracy