Could a dual-layer monetary system solve the inflation vs savings problem?

I’ve been thinking about a structural problem in modern monetary systems:

We use the same type of money for two fundamentally different functions:

• everyday transactions (where some inflation is actually useful)
• long-term savings (where inflation is destructive)

This creates a built-in conflict:

• if you stabilize money → economy slows down
• if you stimulate economy → savings get eroded

So I started exploring an alternative model:

A dual-layer monetary system

• Transaction money (fully backed, stable, optimized for circulation)
• Store-of-value money (designed to preserve purchasing power over time)

Key ideas:

• strict limits on money issuance (no discretionary expansion)
• separation between payments and credit creation
• market discipline instead of central bank-driven policy

This is conceptually inspired by Hayek (denationalisation of money), but with a more structured institutional layer.

One important addition I’m considering:

prioritisation in payment systems

• everyday transactions always processed first
• large / non-essential / above-normal transfers delayed under load

This would protect real economic activity during crises instead of letting financial flows clog the system.

I’ve written a more detailed version here:
https://jratkevics.blogspot.com/2026/04/on-national-debt-and-monetary-system.html

My main questions:

• Is separating “transaction money” and “store-of-value money” fundamentally flawed?
• Would this create instability or actually reduce systemic risk?
• Are there historical examples that are truly comparable (not just superficially “dual currency” systems like USSR)?

Curious to hear serious critiques.