As I said earlier, gold has not had a fixed supply, including over the thousands of years that was cited as it being something close to a monetary standard. ZB did not address this. So the historical example of gold does not support the premise that bitcoin can serve as a universal monetary standard. The experiment of a fixed supply monetary standard has never been run, and certainly not run repeatedly to determine the range of outcomes.
The very mention of "fixed supply monetary standard" shows a misunderstanding of what money is in the first place. Here I mean money the system, not the actual units. Money is a ledger tracking who owns what
percentage of the total claims on goods and services in an economy. This ledger has historically been maintained using pieces of scarce metal, paper promises by a central issuer, and now in the most natural and direct way: as an actual ledger (Bitcoin).
If you keep thinking about "currency" and "money supply" you will never understand money. Thinking in terms of percentages, it is clear that "money supply" cannot be expanded - only the ratios of who owns what can be changed. When a miner gets a mining reward, no "new money" is created, even though such phrasing is familiar in everyday talk. All that happens is the percentage of the total ledger all current holders own decreases slightly, while the miner's percentage increases. The very same thing happens when a gold miner finds a nugget or the Fed prints a billion dollars. Only the ratios change.
This is why, again, the whole implication that "something untoward might happen if we do this unprecedented thing where we have a fixed money supply" or "won't something bad happen if money supply doesn't grow with the economy" is based on a pure misconception. To quote a recent
reddit post, "It's like saying you need to continually increase the number of inches in a foot as your child grows in order to measure his height."