If it were to freeze at it's current price, it would only be able to power a very small economy of 1T$, that's nothing considering it's borderless and digital.
It will never become a global reserve currency for the same reason gold is no longer a basis for money. It is better to inflate your way out of problems (print money to bail out key institutions) than to deflate your way out of them (great depression). Better is defined as causing less harm to individuals.
Inflation sucks for more people than deflation. It causes social strife, environmental destruction through overconsumption, a widening gap between the rich and the poor, more expensive healthcare for lower classes, stress and the need to live on the corporate treadmill, a general inability to identify worthwhile investments versus ponzi schemes because TINA, pushing more people into partial servitude to the economic system by encouraging borrowing.
It's great for the rich, though. Lowered interest rates things like financial games, leveraged trading, and corporate agglomeration become favored. And the devaluing currency pushes average joes to participate in the wall street casino, which is good for CEOs.
It's not the deflation of the great depression that was causing starvation. Remember that during the part of the great depression where people were starving (nobody was starving at the onset), the government was doing things like buying food and burying it on the premise that this would create demand and stimulate prices.
I'd counter by saying that the strongest decades of median real wage growth and general GDP growth were during the high inflation 1960s and 1970s.
I'd argue that the fact nobody was starving at the beginning of the great depression means that the economic mess didn't cause the starvation is a bit of a straw man. Of course, at the beginning, people don't immediately find themselves in destitution, they draw down savings. The destitution begins when the economic disruption becomes prolonged.
I can't find any primary sources on the government policy of destroying food, but I'd conjecture the reason it was done (if it happened) was to support nominal food prices and therefore the apparent credit-worthiness of farms in a highly deflationary environment. Of course, the real problem was that there was insufficient aggregate demand to support the nominal food price, i.e. deflation combined with wage-price downward stickiness caused the market to fail to clear.
