I thank you for giving my the opportunity to flesh out more details on this.

For the first question, the reason a person who assumes that inflation is when money is created, then believes that debt is not inflationary, is because they fundamentally believe that the debt will be paid off and the actual amount of money will be unchanging (the base money supply view). We of course know that the system of debt can never be paid off, because more credit/debt exists than exists in the base money supply. Now more forgiving economists would say that a 50% reserve requirement would make this an actual possibility, but in the third explanation I will go into further detail on why I don't agree with this assumption.

Now, for the second, while the strategy of taking out debt at an interest rate lower than that of inflation works for those who can afford it, it is important to recognize the psychology at play here. The average person is typically mind blown when you explain the concept you just did to them. The terms they usually think in, is "If my rent will increase over time, will I be able to pay that as well as the interest on my debt with my current salary". You see, increases in wages is the very last thing to increase during inflation, and usually only occurs due to absolute necessity. People generally do not assume that wages will increase as prices increase. (And anyway this is the reason the Federal Reserve touches interest rates in the first place so if you really disagree with it, you have to come up with your own explanations for why their interest rate changes have any impact on the economy at all) Please refer to the Ray Dalio video on "How to economic machine works" for an a really in depth explanation.

Now, for the third. Debt results in malinvestment. (Informational purposes only: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malinvestment) You see, I put money in a bank, the bank takes that money and issues debt, that debt allows people to spend more than they earn, which has an inflationary effect. Businesses see an increase in profits which leads to malinvestment as those businesses then use that earnings information, to make decisions on how to expand their business, but when it comes time to pay off that debt, spending goes down and so those decisions are not rewarded. A start up needs to be funded by investors, people who can see and believe in the vision of the business and decisions on expansion need to be based on actual the spending of actual earnings to be sustainable. The primary thing I would point to for why even a 50% reserve requirement is not enough to allow the debt system to be a sustainable model, is the glass Stegal act. (Informational purposes only: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/050515/did-repeal-glasssteagall-act-contribute-2008-financial-crisis.asp). Any permission for custodians of any sort to exist will result in lobbying that allows them to lend those funds out (if they even care to do so legally in the first place) and then to lend out more and more of those funds as time goes on and they'd be enabled to do this, because you'd be giving them the money to do the lobbying with in the first place. Now, maybe you'd argue that a change in how the government works would prevent that from happening, but that seems much more uncertain and has much further reaching implications than simply transitioning away from debt entirely.

I agree that debt isn’t the enemy. I believe debt will be the force (or solution)that drives digital currency like bitcoin and the lightning network….