The opposite transition is also possible: usually this is called hyperinflation, after which the former monetary item is reduced to something like toilet paper (that is, takes on its former simple usage price).
Which I think why Austrians argues that having a use value is important. If you have a use value, then it can't disappear like toilet paper, despite market manipulation/volatility, which is very important to establish durable trust in the asset.
Well, if the monetary value is what comes on top of the usage value, and is large compared to the usage value when the asset becomes money, then hyperinflation just brings the monetary part down to 0, and what remains is the usage value. But the monetary part of the asset value is still 0. Of course, it kind of "limits the damage".
Let us look at gold. Let us say that the monetary value of gold is $1200.- and the usage value is $10.-.
If ever there were a hyperinflation of gold, so that nobody kept gold as a speculative (monetary) asset to "hold value" but only to USE it, then gold would go down from $1200.- to $10.-
People using gold would still buy it at $10.- to make some jewellery and to make certain electronic components. Nobody would buy gold to hold it to re-sell it for value (which was the demand that made the price go up to $1200.-).
So the "worst case" devaluation of gold would be something like a factor 120 then, while with pure money, it is infinite.
With paper fiat bank notes, it has about the usage value of toilet paper, which is also not strictly zero :-)
But the monetary part is just as well gone, whether it was in addition to some usage value or not.
Concerning bitcoin, I don't understand the argument, because I think it is backward. Of course, the blockchain is a valuable "store of irreversibly registered data" ... on the condition that bitcoin is expensive !
Because if bitcoin is not expensive, then the difficulty will be very low, and the security of the blockchain will be very low too. So the value of the blockchain is derived from the price of bitcoin, and not the other way around !
If, for one or other reason, tomorrow, a coin is traded $0.000001 and remains there for a few years, then with all the hashing machinery that is lying around, I can, at a certain cost, corrupt the blockchain, because difficulty will have gone down with a factor a billion or so.
With all that hashing machinery I would be able to redo the blockchain from a certain point onward, and the "value" of the graving in stone of the blockchain would totally evaporate.
So it is the price of bitcoin that keeps the value of the blockchain causally, and not the other way around.
Proof: look at the "value" of the blockchain of any shitty altcoin with no value. That chain is just as valueless as its coin. You cannot trust the irreversibility of that chain. Nevertheless, technologically, it is the same !