Imagine a world with a currency that came in various bond forms, which we can divide into 3 rough categories:
* base currency which slowly loses X% of its relative value per year - where X is 3% or something
* mid-term bonds which stay perfectly stable in relative value
* long-term bonds which gain in relative value at X% per year

Normally this system would be inflationary, but that's kindof arbitrary - one can easily imagine just converting the currency into relative units.

Holding base currency gives you the most liquidity and is the best option if you may need to make big purchases in the near future - but you slowly lose wealth to 'inflation'.  Holding long term bonds gives you a return (negative 'inflation' that is the counterpart to the currency value loss), but you have to plan expenses carefully. Most people would hold some mix that suites their needs.

Now this system may seem 'strange' but it actually has some interesting pareto optimality going on - everybody is generally better off.  Inflation isn't a problem because the people holding lots of base currency don't expect to hold it for long anyway - and more importantly - the interest drives demand for bonds which removes liquid money supply which generally lowers prices.

So the currency holders are better off because they get lower prices compared to a system without bonds, and the long term bond holders are better off because they get interest.  Everyone wins.

Actually - and here's the secret - our current system is already kind of like this (but with a bunch of added extra complexity).  We just don't renormalize the money base, and moreover - the bond gain doesnt actually match the monetary inflation, so the current system 'leaks'.