Ah, I see. Your original comment implied volatility because of global BTC demand and conversion rates to fiat. But if you are meaning volatility due to its inelastic nature, that's a different conversation.

A few thoughts on that:

First, that kind of volatility will only experience massive 20% moves overnight due to some major change in the goods/services themselves. So, if aliens attack all the milk farms in the world overnight, there will be volatility in milk the next day. This would happen even in an elastic-money world also, however. The Central Banks use their tricks to try to flatten the curve in both directions, so that price movements are less extreme. But they can only do that on a large-scale. They can't do anything about the price of milk, specifically, after my hypothetical alien lactose intolerance.

I think we've been brainwashed by the Keynesians on many economic topics, including the differences in elastic vs inelastic money. I think wild price swings will happen EQUALLY in both systems, as I explained above. And I think their ability to manipulate the curve is an overestimated, mostly non-existent benefit. We've never had the entire world on a single hard-money standard before. Where all the supply chains across the board are anchored by a single, inelastic currency. I think something like this would "flatten the curve" in the same way Central Banks attempt to do now. The wide distribution across multiple trading jurisdictions would remove the need for elasticity. The system would be large enough, and distributed enough.

Obviously, I'm speaking hypothetically now, because we haven't actually tried this as a civilization yet. But I hope I'm getting my ideas across well enough.

The tldr is: Elastic money supplies don't "reduce volatility" nearly as much as we have been 'sold' they do. This kind of volatility will be roughly the same in both systems. (In my opinion). Keynesianism is a hellofa drug.