*sigh* I shouldn't even address this, but I shall. The logical fallacy your trying to pull off is called a stawman argument, wherein you try to get your opponent to argue a position they never took. When done cleverly, it can derail and discredit an argument. Yours wasn't all that clever.

NEVER ONCE did I state that savings is equal to inflation. Nor did I argue that interest was inflation. Nor will I. What I stated, specifically, is that THIS mechanism, Proof of Stake is inflationary. This should be obvious, but apparently it isn't. So I shall elucidate.

In normal savings, done via a bank as opposed to simple hoarding, you deposit funds. The bank then uses those funds in investments, returning the funds and interest derived from the fees (interest) that they charged for the use of the funds. A partnership for investment with minimal effort on the part of the depositor.

Proof of Stake, by stark contrast, rewards the hoarder for doing NOTHING with their money, and does indeed create money without investment or work. Thus it is inflationary by definition.

Inflation is indeed intended to stop savings. Keynes thought (using the word loosely) that money should not ever be kept aside, that even the "tradtional" savings I listed above would slow or stop an economy. He dismissed Menger and Von Mises not on merit, but because they advised caution and prudence. Two things he was openly opposed to.

Again, there are two forms of inflation. One is inherent in any sort of commodity money, and that is the production of the asset. This form tends to be self correcting as the asset becomes rarer. This is the model that the crytpocurrency movement initially modeled, and most successful coins have followed. It is inflationary at the outset, and diminishes over time. This makes it deflationary in the long term, and because of the scarcity created,it becomes more valuable per unit. This is not true in a vacuum, of course, as the asset has to be USED.

Yes, it can be saved or hoarded (they aren't synonomous, but they are related). This is not in itself uneconomic from the point of view of an individual actor. If everyone hoards and no one spends, then the asset becomes devalued and useless. This never actually happens for very long, but it can happen when times are tough otherwise, because people want a hedge. As things improve or the stockpiles increase, people again start investing.

The second form of inflation, the pernicious one, is "printing money", or legal currency, thus diluting the asset or making it unattractive in the short term. See Gresham's Law.

Here's where interest rates come in. In a centrally managed system, they are manipulated, as you noted, to discourage saving and encourage malinvestment. This creates the boom/bust cycle. In a rational market, where risks are not absorbed by governments and central banks, interest tends to be high for risky investments. This makes the actors seeking loans think long and hard about repayment, and lowers the amount of malinvestment. There will always be idiots, but high interest rates discourage them. Artificially low interest rates, on the other hand, encourage investment in dubious prospects, and thus create bubbles. Sooner or later, bubbles pop. See 2008 as a good example. Or 1921. Or 1928. Or 1936. I could go on. Fiat currency is particularly vulnerable to this because of it's nature and because of fractional reserve banking, in which the debits are counted as assets to "create" money. Much like Proof of Stake.

As shown above, my grasp is far beyond basic. Both in economics and debate. Some references for you:

logical fallacies and the art of debate

Economics in one lesson

Human Action