Moldbug himself said the optimal situation is one in which the money supply is fixed.
I am simply reiterating his point.
I am not saying that we could actually reform the current fiat system into that.
Moldbug had other suggestions to how to move the current financial system in that direction but via more moderate and controlled means. I am assuming you have read about those.

“Our first solution is a free-market solution. In the free-market solution, Washington renounces all bailouts, guarantees, nationalizations, etc. There is an easy way to do this: break the Fed’s printing press. Pass a constitutional amendment limiting the number of dollars extant to the number of actual dollars in the world: M0, 825 billion. That’s about $2750 for every American – although not all of these dollars, of course, are in America.

Result: the mother of all bank runs. All bank deposits are vaporized. The assets backing them become nearly worthless. Have fun paying off that $300,000 mortgage, with your $2750. Even Treasury obligations trade at pennies on the dollar – have fun paying off that $10T national debt, in a world with only 825 billion dollars.

The good news: hyperdeflation. If you have a dollar, an actual physical greenback, you can eat for a day. If you have $20, you’re set for the month. A benjamin is unimaginable wealth. Gas? Five cents a gallon. Gold? Worthless. Ammo? Priceless. Basically, we’re looking at Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, with 1915 prices. I’m sure this would make some people very happy. I am not one of them.”

The velocity of money will stay low into the indefinite future because … this time it’s different?

I suspect that “sterilization” is a large part of what’s going on. My impression is that the Fed is sitting on a pressure cooker, and eventually it’s going to blow, but I don’t want to make any bets with you because I have no idea when this is likely to happen.

With inflation likely to be near zero as far as the eye can see, it’s not clear to me how crypto-currencies are gonna get the kind of traction their creators foresee. Gold is actually the better bet at this point (in theory, at least), since central banks will be constantly nudged to print to keep nominal street prices from falling. In that scenario gold rises while everything else remains flat or falls. Just a concept, that. But intellectually I think it’s sound.

My argument in favor of QE has been that 2008 was a once-every-four-generations event, and required a once-every-four-generations response. Which we got.

Looking ahead … monetary policy is likely to get trickier as humanity moves into the virtual world and the rate of creative destruction accelerates. All those real-world debts out there may get harder to service, such as the US government’s $16 trillion in liabilities. I’m not sure how this resolves but it’s a live issue. If one were gonna make a long-term argument for gold it would be simply that as the economy becomes more virtual and less currency-centric (and brick-and-mortar-centric), nominal GDP may decline just due to those forces. Then the sort of good-versus-evil choice you allude to may be more at hand. (And it may not even be precisely good versus evil since that $16T of debts is largely owed to everyday Americans.)

Another question to consider: What was your stance on monetary policy in 2005? If you didn’t have one there’s a reason for that: These issues weren’t on many people’s radar until AFTER the crash. The moral decision matrix is a lot different after a crash than before one. The time to go after the financial evildoers is before a crash, not after one … The latter approach just hurts the man in the street — witness the 52% youth unemployment in Spain.