The only problem with this view is that everything that is deemed 'money' is issued by the state. And money that is issued by the state has the incentives built in to eventually self-destruct, since the elites get to receive unearned power and wealth by issuing too much of it
The reason for that was quite simple, though
But it is no longer applicable, anyway. Money was the state's privilege simply because they had the monopoly on the means of communications and could easily intercept anything you might send over, say, a phone line. With Internet reaching almost every hole out there and encryption all over the place, this is no longer the case, so this monopoly is essentially over too. Money as cash doesn't play a significant role in today's world, it is transferring value over long distances with minimal delays which is what counts nowadays
I'm sorry, but this is wrong in many ways.
Are you saying communications technology was how the state used to monopolize money? Compared to the gold standard, communications interception wasn't even a close second, in terms of being a tool of monopoly.
And in any case, with the gold standard secure, the state had no need to resort to 'low-brow' techniques to prop up their money. (But maybe now the do.)
Also, can you seriously say the dollar, euro, etc. are not state-money monopolies today, with all the same incentives for the elites to destabilize their own system?
Is this the basis of your conclusion that state money will be stable, that they're 'no longer monopolies?' If so, it is simply absurd.