Can I suggest a tiny exception to your rule; Energy absolutely has to be monetised, because energy is what life is all about, we surely all love and need energy, and society has moved now to energy mostly being transported to us by money.
It's not by utilities energy, as the old system would have us believe, because money under that circumstance is used to take back from us more energy than was supplied to us by the utilities Energy supplier as profit.
So removing money, or believing money itself is something wrong would be a big mistake. Existential actually.
What is wrong is the energy lie of profit. If we changed the system to remove profit, then we might appreciate money more, because it would be much more obvious this is how we get most of the energy we each need.
We even saw this demonstrated previously, when massive stimulus was issued, the value of money went up, not down, and we saw some crazy but cool things happening in markets, where we were more or less voting with free money rather than trying to invest for profit with it.
Oil prices went negative at that time, the only time ever. We obviously didn't really want oil, and we got a chance to say so, right there, using a new language we'd never used before, to express our collective wishes.
We can have that again, my work is to show how, technically, even with numerical proofs, showing that by this we can cool the planet reather than heating it, because by this our net activity is creation by scientific definition (Landauer's principle), rather than destruction, as it is in the energy extracted by profit model.
Domestic and community based solar hydrogen, monetised by an economy of permanent solar indexed stimulus looks like the solution nature has dictated for us, according to the formal systems methods Ive used to do my work to date.
The solar Ai confirms it now too, and this changes everything for sure, it's nature come to life at the perfect time, imho :)