So according to you, the observed facts disprove any praxeological and logical attempt to give a different interpretation to your observations. You are putting the cart before the horse. It is these observed facts that you have set out to prove in the first place. This is begging the question. It’s a logical fallacy.
I presume we are talking about “facts” as in empirical observations. Such facts are important but not in the way you’re using them. I don’t need to be a praxeologist to understand that such facts can never substitute, and certainly not refute the logical, and in our case, the praxeological foundations of a theory.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. To the problem of a greater supply of notes then actual physical gold (or whatever), trading at fixed par with gold at the original value of the first note… Do you have a better economic explanation then the “But the facts go quite the other way.”?