The idea of "safeguarded savings" is a conceptual abstraction. Think of a barter economy. I trade you a loaf of bread I baked for a haircut. Where did we get the idea that I should be able to bank that haircut, and come to you 10, 20 years later and still get that haircut? It's a view that comes from seeing money as something of intrinsic value, rather than what it really is: a proxy that decouples transactions in what would otherwise be a barter economy.
In nature, "savings" are subject to loss and decay. You "save" by building a house to live in or storing away grain--all those things are subject to deterioration, disaster, etc. Financializing it doesn't change that underlying fact.
you can put it more simply by just realizing that money is essentially a promise for some goods or services made by somebody, to be delivered at some point in the future. I.e., keeping money is a liability.
If a society (or a large number of individuals/institutes, incl gov'ts) fails to deliver on their promise of goods and services, then the money looses its value. And this is what seems to be happening a lot more everywhere - more and more money is promised (or printed), but the amount of goods and services hasn't really grown in proportion, and so at some point this is gonna have to fail somewhere...
In nature, "savings" are subject to loss and decay. You "save" by building a house to live in or storing away grain--all those things are subject to deterioration, disaster, etc. Financializing it doesn't change that underlying fact.