Thread (1/6): Quants / financial engineers / options traders are the easiest people to convince that engineering a money "for a stable price level" can never be a optimum strategy for a money and an alternative is more cost effective (bitcoin):

(2/6) Primer: put = price-decline insurance, call = price-increase insurance
long/buy = pay premium for the insurance, short/write = collect premium to issue the insurance

(3/6) A money with a "stable price level" essentially means no downside nor any upside. This is equivalent to a collar position: (long security + long put + short call). A central bank being the party you pay the put premium to and sacrifice your upside to on a call.

(4/6) The only way that a collar position can ever achieve costless stability is if the put/call risks are perfectly symmetrical across all domains including time. Which is never going to happen, regardless of what inductive-reasoning, non-SITG, IYI consultants churn out.

(5/6) The reason why central-bank-as-collar-trade always, eventually blows up is the central bank always performs assignment on the call trade (currency deflation) but weakly performs put assignment (inflation insurance)

(6/6) A Married Put (long security + long put) protects against decline in purchasing power without sacrificing deflationary benefits to the holder. This will always be cost-effective than central-bank-as-collar-trade.