But what I also found out during my research is that there are two conflicting theories in regards to what causes the demand for money. One of them, the Cambridge cash-balance theory, saying that "money's ability to store value is more important than its function as a medium of exchange". And another one, Fisher's theory, saying that "demand arises because money is needed for exchange"
Keep in mind that both of these theories had been developed with hard currencies in mind and circulation, i.e. paper money back in the day was redeemable for gold. With fiat money, the Cambridge cash-balance theory becomes obsolete, especially now when many people are living on credit (read, households have negative cash reserves)
Yet, for most people in the world (read: for the people living in developing and undeveloped countries) hard currencies, such as United States dollar, Euro, Swiss franc, British pound sterling and Japanese yen, is still a store of value, regardless of the fact that they are not backed by gold anymore. Since we are talking about 85% of the world population here, I think it's too early to write off the capacity of money(hard currencies, at least) to serve as a store of value.
Or am I missing something here?
. I guess the best thing we could do is to pray for the best and get used to it at the same time — less expectations, less hurt. If you will ask me to choose one, I would probably choose the high volatilty. At least you still got chance of sudden price spike compare to slow but constant inflation. 
