Seems to me we're actually heading for the competing private currencies advocated by Hayek, who thought the result would be long-term price stability without the need for top-down control.
Denationalisation of Money was arguably disproven by the ICO boom - it turned out that actual users just treated the shitcoins as proxies for BTC and ETH, and BTC and ETH as proxies for dollars.
But fine, I'll admit I have little to go on. Are you willing to admit the same? Because you're even further from the actual data so far.
as in, demand for using crypto as a transactional currency, rather than as a speculative asset right?
The demand that is unstable is because it is driven primarily by speculation. There's very few commodities being exchanged via crypto.
So to reach stable demand, crypto must be a currency that is used for non-speculative transactions (such as buying groceries, or buying oil from countries). I don't see that happening any time soon tbh, except for may be countries that are trying to escape USA sanctions.
...So apparently you will not admit that there's little evidence to support your hyperinflation theory.
So they claim. Could it also be that debasing the currency is far easier than taxation as a form of wealth appropriation since the effect is subtle and indirect?
Anyone can make their own crypto, and they do - so cryptocurrency as a whole is hyperinflationary.
Bitcoin maximalists say, but bitcoin is first and unique in many ways. Certainly - but not in ways that the trading or payment markets appear to care about. The "banking the unbanked" proposal is much closer to the payments market - nothing about it seems to depend on bitcoin's special characteristics.
I note that you're proposing a bitcoin version of Austrian economics there, with the word "bitcoin" substituted for "gold" - but Austrian economics proponents have long noted this cut'n'paste cryptocurrency problem with the bitcoin proposition.