Money with an unstable purchasing power (over time) cannot be said to be ideal, especially if the purchasing power is expected to decline.
Central Banks use monetary policy to target inflation for economic growth. There is an accepted “slight” devaluation of our currencies over time.
But leaving these governing systems to create their own index for “stability” creates a centralization of power, a(n unnecessarily) security leak in regard to stability of purchasing power.
National fiats also get into a position of wanting to devalue to encourage export.
The US can’t necessarily devalue without changing its role as the (de facto?) world reserve currency.
Our Keynesian attempts at stabilizing currencies and growth are doomed to failure, built on naturally corruptible metrics that cannot possibly hope to be forward thinking enough to achieve the intended goal of stability.
Hayek teaches us ONLY the totality of the markets could have such precision, information, intuition etc.
So “Asymptotically Ideal Money” is this:
“Good money” is to be favored by the markets and this would show up in price, provided we have a universal exchange for getting in or out of each national fiat.
Today because of bitcoin, and as adoption grows, citizens of each respective nation has the choice of either their nations fiat, or bitcoin (or any other option available in the future).
So even a self interested government, trying to manipulate currency for their own gain (taxation, capital gains etc.) still must respond to the new game this option creates.
There is then an asymptotic evolution, where the markets lead the Keynesian/central banking policies in the direction of stability of purchasing power.
Ideal Money essentially achieved through either adoption of bitcoin AND/OR national fiats of increasingly better quality in the gresham/nashian sense.