Such failures are often caused by liquidity crises which are much more likely in a deflationary environment. Market capitalism is a financial system and financial accounting is nominal. Whenever the general means of payment becomes too scarce to support the liability structure of the economy, you get insolvencies which lead to asset liquidations which lead to the collapse of collateral values which leads to more liquidations, etc. The aftermath is rarely pretty and often dangerous.
In most advanced economies, the supply of money is endogenous and central banks are merely reacting to whatever the economy throws at them. It is true that central banks accommodating a very high demand for credit and savings contributes to inflation. But that’s far from a sufficient reason to switch to a deflationary monetary system.
By “devalue assets” I’m assuming you mean the increase in nominal asset prices, which bolsters the net worth of asset holders and improves their ability to service debts. I agree that there are negative second order effects that have mostly to do with inequality, but again, I don’t see how this is a sufficient reason to switch to a deflationary monetary system.
By definition, everyone cannot simultaneously accumulate a scarce asset, just like everyone cannot simultaneously save in a fixed supply money. But everyone (who holds the asset) can simultaneously benefit from its price appreciation, which is what happens to homeowners and ZEC hodlers when central banks are doing their best to keep asset values high. But it’s a category error to view money itself as an investment vehicle. If you make claims to real resources scarce, by definition, fewer people will have access to real resources.
If the demand and thus the price of the asset is increasing, asset holders are actually disincentivized to spend their asset. Instead, they are incentivized to borrow against the asset to acquire more assets. As their gains increase, they are incentivized to liquidate only as little as needed to satisfy their desire for consumption.
There’s a marginal strand of heterodox economics whose intellectual legacy is tied to keeping this idea alive. As is the case with many other ideas in economics, I’m afraid it’s survival has more to do with politics/ideology than real-world experience or empirical research.
In other words, you would not feel comfortable recommending that millions of people take out mortgages or that businesses denominate contracts in ZEC? But that’s a core function of money: to serve as a financial unit of account. It seems to me that what you’re describing is not money but an investment vehicle. One can certainly aspire to turn single units of money into investment assets but I’ve always found it a rather curious (and economically dangerous!) objective.
. The truely rational thing to do (for society) would be to participate in the system that is a balance of fairness while maximising gross output. And that would likely be inflationary 
.
(although that’s a completely different proposition from the point of view of anyone who for whatever reason isn’t currently and probably won’t be employed in the future).