Add to your analysis that things should be stable in time to be, well, stable. Stopping to print money is "physically" but it is not stable as a political strategy because it is sub-optimal and competes with other agents who are willing to use more effective strategies (like short-sight inflationism + gaslighting).
A basketball team can physically apply a sub optimal strategy in his games and since they are competing with others who will apply a better strategy they will end up losing.
In the political realm being fiscally responsible is suicide, you are competing with lairs who try and sell "hot ice cream" to naïve voters who are eager to have their cake and eat it too.
Here there is a deep statist culture, rooted in Peronism (like a Mussolini leader, 100% interventionist and statist) that is fueled by generations of public schools brainwashing people into believing that the state should "guarantee" whatever the hell they want, housing, health, jobs...
What you are seeing can't be described in any other way but as "a glitch in the matrix" because the perfect storm, Milei won because he is 1 in a billion, and seems to be autistic enough to try to deliver on what he promised, but only time will tell. There is still the case that his strategy is sub optimal in competing with politicians who will sell your future in a heart bit to gain an edge in the next election, at the expense of more debt, inflation or taxes tomorrow.
With regards to Bitcoin, the same argument applies, I thing that switching to a Bitcoin standard on a personal basis is the Most Effective Tactic Available rn, so fiscal responsability can slow things down a bit, but won't change anything in the long run. Those who adopt Bitcoin will have an edge, will hold the product of they effort and delayed reward for longer, and continue to have better incentives than those who goes for fiat.
As a Bitcoin argie I can tell you this: