That was food for thought, as a toknormal post usually is.

Here's my take, fwiw. Fiat tends to be issued in fixed denominations (farthing, ha'penny... shilling, pound, whatever) with no plan originally to modify the set. Central banks do fiddle with the set as inflation bites but in a fairly limited way, at least until their house is afire. Anyway, I'm thinking of the  notion that crypto tends to have a built-in scaling factor that is absent in fiat. Units like "sats" or "duffs" can presumably handle any foreseeable population growth on this planet, although possibly not beyond that.

Switching to duffs as the normal unit of commerce rather than dash (or the in-between units that don't yet have names) wouldn't keep prices stable in a literal sense but would allow the same crypto system to continue indefinitely without "issuing more currency". People seem to accept as normal whatever they become used to, so just as "everybody knows" farthings aren't money any more, so people might know in time that things are priced in duffs, not Dash.

Coindesk published an opinion today noting that BTC had recently achieved relative price stability matching fiat (yen, GBP, Euro cited) but without central bank intervention. If true it demonstrates the irrelevance of central banks! Presumably Dash is structurally even more stable because of the MNs. Your points 1 and 2 have certainly applied historically, within fiat-world but I'm guessing (hoping) that at least point 1 will lose relevance in crypto-world.

I like the possibility that markets can decide what scale to use rather than having it decided by some central entity. Of course I may not like what scale the markets choose (but I already know I don't like the scale the central entities choose).