However the second one I am not sure about, the problem with QE and all the other horrible stuff that financial institutions did caused the world to be in such a financial disaster, plus all the horrible people who got sooooo rich that there are millions of poor people as well.
Bitcoin is not like that, it is decentralized and that matters a lot, which is why if bitcoin becomes like a gold standard, I hope that there is nothing that could make altcoins turn into "money printing machine" for the elites, that would basically be the thing that hurts us the most.
The difference to the mechanisms I described in this post and QE is exactly that it is much less "elitist". Elites can benefit from it, of course, for example if a multi-billion company like PayPal "prints" PayPalBTC which are not backed by real BTC. But they can't exaggerate with that, because if there were >21 million PayPalBTC in existence anybody would smell something fishy and a bank run would happen.
But the mechanisms I described are decentralized. They give anybody the power to "print money", just as Satoshi already printed his own money with Bitcoin (I know, Bitcoiners do not like this analogy

). So why should you use an elitist Bitcoin-based "pseudo-stablecoin" like PayPalBTC if you can use a much more transparent stablecoin maintained by a decentralized open source project, for example? Bitshares' BitBTC is already an example where this could be heading, although the Bitshares project had some centralized elements. But at least it wasn't launched by the "bankers elite" (at least if I didn't miss something about Daniel Larimer ...).
The mechanisms are also very similar to alternative currencies which exist in many countries as tools for barter communities. They are also "printing money" in some way, but this "money" is often backed by the goods and services which are exchanged in these communities. And it's not an elitist "money printing" at all - at the contrary, it's often the poorer segments of a society who depend on these mechanisms.