Of course not. In all monetary systems that exist at present, the purchasing power of the economy's money does not come close to the economy's total wealth. As you say in your posts, and to parrot Benjamin Graham, price is not value. Price is simply what someone is willing to pay at the margin. Unless you take a long-term perspective, where the market is a true weighing machine, prices do not necessarily reflect fundamental value.

The point of this post is to demonstrate how and why bitcoin can self-regulate an economy under a bitcoin standard. Previously, I thought that in a hyperbitcoinized economy, bitcoin will become more valuable relative to all other assets during times of crisis, and less valuable relative to other assets when the economy overheats. The result would be that bitcoin debts become harder to service during times of crisis and easier to service when the economy overheats.

If, however, bitcoin is valued at the maximum extent possible, at parity with all other assets, it will always have the same value relative to total wealth, and it can never become more valuable on a relative basis, even during a crisis. This leads to counter-cyclical price signals that promote economic stability.

No money has ever been valued at parity with all other assets before. Bitcoin certainly is not valued that way today, but there is nothing to prevent it from being valued that way in the future. This post tries to show why bitcoin can be a stabilizing unit of account under the premise that it is a constant fraction of total wealth, but this can only be achieved if bitcoin cannot become more valuable on a relative basis. Hence the assumption that a hyperbitcoinized economy maximizes bitcoin's relative value.