You seem to be unaware that you are citing your own argument and the problem with doing so. I have already shown Adam Smith directly refutes you, and now Hayek:
It seems to me to be fairly certain that:
(a) a money generally expected to preserve its purchasing power approximately constant would be in continuous demand so long as the people were free to use it;
(b) with such a continuing demand depending on success in keeping the value of the currency constant one could trust the issuing banks to make every effort to achieve this better than would any monopolist who runs no risk by depreciate his money;
(c) the issuing institution could achieve this result by regulating the quantify of its issue; and
(d) such a regulation of the quantity of each currency would constitute the best of all practicable methods of regulating the quantity of media of exchange for all possible purposes.
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@jokerpravis/the-re-levation-of-hayek-an-inquiry-into-denationalisation-of-moneyAnd Nash refutes your claim as well as his argument runs perfectly parallel to Hayek's, by his own admission:
The talk text, just for the ideal money topic, originally derives from my outline for the lectures given at various specific locations of the European School of Economics in Italy during October 1997. Subsequent to that time, after consulting with some of the economics faculty at Princeton, I learned of the work and publications of Freidrich von Hayek. I must say that my thinking is apparently quite parallel to his thinking in relation to money and particularly with regard to the non-typical viewpoint in relation to the functions of the authorities which in recent times have been the sources of currencies (earlier coinage).)
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@jokerpravis/internationally-ideal-money-the-re-solution-of-nashian-and-hayekian-economic-theory