though i will propose a possible correction there...

s/the billionaire class/the known billionaires/

and hinting that there may well easily be trillionaires we do not get to know of. ... i mean, if you consider the rothschild empire accounted for 200 billion 120 years ago....
yeah... rothschild, makes rockerfeller look like a pauper.

though also worth mentioning it's not the static wealth hoarded/commanded that really makes for the abundance (or not / suppressed-abundance)... it's the synergy (and destroyed/suppressed wealth (and synergy there of)), often in the form of suppressed #emancipationtechnology. so much so, even if there were a quintillionaire hiding in our midst, even they, could be farrrr more wealthy and empowered, if we stop with this nonsense "economic" model of being restricted to finite, lossy, no-gain exchange. ... everybody coulda had a spaceship each since the 1930s. see how held back we are yet? and we get fed chirpings of "progress", HA! >😕

More so than even a debt instrument, Money is a system.
Money = A Centrally Controlled Abstract as applied to a mass for purposes of economics (aka "energy exchange")
The emphasis on centrally controlled can not be over stated.
As such
Money = Slavery
it's built in to what money is
However, there is NO REASON to equate such systemic nature of money with anything to do with ethic moral held by the central control beyond that the central control necessitates a subordinate class in order for it's functional purpose to be realized. The central control could be loving, malicious, or just apathetic in feeling and conduct toward it's subordinate class; it's functional primary concern is simply that the subordinate class is subordinate to it's central control (OBEY). No amount of monetary wealth re-distribution will ever change the nature of what money systemically entails.
as a slavery system is a slavery system

in as much that economics is just energy exchange, any "emancipation technology" is inherently going to address SYSTEMIC centralized control over a mass for economics over simply regarding itself with the behavioral attitudes and/or emotional states of the centralized master control.
More open source things
More Creative Commons
etc.

It's not at all to say that personal belongings need be eliminated, but it is to say that matters of the public politic (meaning those things in or of the affairs of state of public economics/energy exchange) are to be conducted by a witting sovereign individuals of the public AND NOT imposed on any public mass by a centralized entity.

Behind the nature of the economics of conscious actors is always a guiding moral ethic. As such, the moral ethic is always going to steer the economics, Monetary (or otherwise centrally controlled over mass energy exchange systems) economics is just as subject to this as non-monetary economic systems.

In essence, "The floggings shall continue until the moral ethic improves."

reflexively, instantly, from the wording, before even continuing to read further, it desperately needs pointing out in response to:

Money = A Centrally Controlled Abstract as applied to a mass for purposes of economics (aka “energy exchange”)
The emphasis on centrally controlled can not be over stated.

that this is not intrinsic to money, and there are many forms of decentralised money, and money that can be created by anyone to meet needs, and oh so many more forms than the usury encumbered scam we have imposed upon us, extracting all our wealth and power to the robber barons' boss, the central bank controllers. but yeah, the coercive duress of money as imposed now, is intrinsically entangled with/as slavery.

bring on the emancipation technology form of money... let it fall away to mere accounting, rather than a means of coercing everybody to become a #worthyvampire wealth extracting from others, blackmailed by the very system they perpetuate as victim co-perpetrators. it's hella dystopian. but if money were merely accounting, we'd want to account for more, and not run into the arms of ignorance as if salvation while the house burns around us.

The central control could be loving

how would this be achieved and maintained, given the corrupting influence intrinsic to imbalances of power?

economics is just energy exchange

a dangerous reductionist perception held by many a blinkered economist, that gets them reviled by those they trample on, as desk killers, distantly separated and blinded indifferent to the suffering and death they cause.

any “emancipation technology” is inherently going to address SYSTEMIC centralized control

more true complete emancipation technologies (such as spaceships for everybody) kinda averts the need to address it, sublimates way past it in an instant leap for everybody, nullifying it, ending that era of centralised power webs and dominator hierarchies.

over a mass for economics over simply regarding itself with the behavioral attitudes and/or emotional states of the centralized master control.

i found that a little harder to follow the meaning of.

It’s not at all to say that personal belongings need be eliminated,

quite.

much same as proudhon's "property is theft" does not mean to leave us naked toiling in the mud, denied access and use [the contrary it attacks the circumscribing of property defined to deny others access and use],
and similarly nor is the economic dominator class[i forget which specific to ascribe the quote ~ i think it was klaus schwab]'s "you will own nothing, and you will be happy", which is there to maintain their centralised dominator priviledge, rather than proudhon's egalitarianism. in this, both failing to grok proudhon (and failing implement) and failing to grok klaus schwab (and failing to prevent), leave us robbed of all means, and all freedom, left to die.

but it is to say that matters of the public politic (meaning those things in or of the affairs of state of public economics/energy exchange) are to be conducted by a witting sovereign individuals of the public AND NOT imposed on any public mass by a centralized entity.

and woe upon any peoples who foolishly re-create (or allow others to create) such centralised, readily usurp-able, monstrous tools of domination in their midst, in unwitting craving of convenience and shirking of duty. ... that's us, the world over, currently. :/

Behind the nature of the economics of conscious actors is always a guiding moral ethic. As such, the moral ethic is always going to steer the economics, Monetary (or otherwise centrally controlled over mass energy exchange systems) economics is just as subject to this as non-monetary economic systems.

In essence, “The floggings shall continue until the moral ethic improves.”

yeah, and in my espousing the potential of systems whereby money is reduced to mere accounting, it needs caveats that it's not magic pixie dust that mend all things, and that corrupt and corrupting influences will likely still bear down on it for considerable time, as they attempt shift the system either in their favour, or to fit whatever moral superiority they feel that enables them to impose their one true way upon others, manipulating their behaviour, beyond reasoned discourse, fairness and ethics. like much of the strongest characterisations of china's system seems. just as with "who watches the watchmen" who determines the weight of all to be accounted, and what's to be accounted, or discounted.

What "decentralized" form of "money" do you know of?

Will note that of the pop(ular) current known forms of "money", ala dollars, yuans, rubels, pesos, etc. such modern forms basically find their root in the greco-roman empire (though one can go further back than that). Particularly, of the central bank structure (itself largely emergent from the Templar accounting affairs), it's worth keeping in mind that it is in fact a completely centralized structuring.
So the Federal Reserve, Peoples Bank of China, Bank of Japan, Bank of England, so on and so forth are all simply different sub-divisions of the unified structure. In specific, they are central banks (CBs), which in turn are superseded by the IMF and World Bank, whom in turn are superseded by the Bank of International Settlements (oddly enough, the head of the State monetary biz is in fact the BIS). As per whom the BIS is beholden, things basically go dark.... it is beholden to no particular State AND it's ultimate heads are not publicly stated. "The Boss" of the BIS, as it were, remains hidden by design and it's elections have nothing to do with the public.
bis.org/bcbs/index.htm
britannica.com/topic/Bank-for-…

It's worthy to note of the above structure that as HFT (High Frequency Trading) was introduced into the globalized monetary structure that the system was largely handed over to automated management (aka "A.I.") Toward such end, over 70% of global trades are now handled via HFT. "In The Algos We Trust" Central Management Inc.

The Nation State (i.e. U.S.A., China, Australia, etc.) structure has since been further removed/distanced from it's involvement in monetary management via the introduction of cryptocurrencies (and otherwise "alt-coins").

Modern Monetary Theory states two interdependent phenomenological axioms and the banking system operates on a resulting syllogism:
• Axiom 1: in discounted cash flow analysis (axiom 1a), 0 = 1 and (axiom 1b) 1 = 1..N .
• Axiom 2: Government possesses, de facto, exclusive, and perpetual right of use of Axiom 1a for Ab-Initio Money(M0) monetary creation (FIAT M0).
• Syllogism 3: The creation of Asset Backed Money(M4) is a consequence of these two axioms. The banking system creates BACKED M4 with debt-backed cash flows of type 1b: 1 = N with N ⇡ 1. Add equity to these cash flows (e.g. project finance) and you create a return of type 1 = N with N 1 or axiom1b. FIAT
currencies are therefore designed to be accretive with possibility of fluctuation.

In the past 12 years, the formation and emergence of BTC and ETH (most notably post 2017 ICO expansions) has verifiably falsified Axiom 2. The phenomenon of crypto-currencies has created ab-initio global stores of value of type 1a. CryptoCurrencies have displaced trust by means of government violence and associated, implied violence, with instead, open source distribution, cloud computing, objective mathematics, and the algorithmic integrity of blockchain ledgers.

On the surface, this emergence of Non-Nation State "money" may strike as having "decentralized" money, but more to point, at best it simply obfuscated the nature of centralization. As had already been the case of Nation State "money" (and global trade in greater general) in relation to "A.I." management (via HFT and the like) with central bank (BIS) managed liquidity (aka money existing in the system to flow), the blockchain has proven to remain just as centralized; "A.I." remaining largely in it's same place, central bank (BIS) managed liquidity remaining in a diminishing place (to current), and increasingly centralized means of both "mining" and ledger administration replacing the diminishing role of CB (BIS) managed administration and (power for) liquidity provide. The centralized control in place just as much as ever, the means and mode by which it is handled just "updated".
Again, money is centrally controlled.
Where one might seek to detach from central "mining" (or other wise "money creation") and ledger administration, among other issues, fire walling against "A.I." infiltration and take over remains an open issue.
So taking something like GNU Taler which grants independent individuals the ability to process all sorts of monetary payments COMBINED with new abilities for independent persons to create their own new currencies, which on the surface may appear to look like monetary decentralization, is to misunderstand the natures of Enterprise (as a centrally collective emergence) resource power AND "A.I." In essence, the systems are ultimately little more "decentralized" than a Youtube that allows users to create their own channels and upload their own content; differing from Enterprise models such as Youtube mostly in just that the levels of obfuscation to the central control have been increased.
also worthy of note here is that (among else) higher power/orders of "A.I." increasingly take away any meaningful levels of "security" one might be offered by such obfuscation.

As per why "money" NEEDS to be centralized, such is largely just an emergent property of money being able to be used effectively as any sort of meaningful economic trade standard. The enabling of effective and meaningful store of value, "Price Discovery", and things such as that.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_di…
On small orders of scale, "money" is typically less likely to act under a non-benign or otherwise malicious intent on it's slave class simply because the central controls relationship to it's subservient (slave) tends to be more directly connected or otherwise entangled. So it's not that the master and servant/slave relationship ends, it's just more likely to carry a master holding a benign relationship to it's slave class.
However, the smaller the scale, the smaller the functional use case for money.
Historically speaking and easily made out by current globalization results, drivers of money have looked to increase scale, yielding interplanetary talk now very real and active things (i.e. the IP in IPFS for Filecoin stands for "Inter Planetary")
As the order of scale increases so does the potential and likelihood for the central control to become apathetic or malicious towards it's subservient class, which is more just an emergent property out of the monetary functional need to maintain it's place as an adhered to master in order to functionally exist. So for example, the high tech daemon known as "A.I." really doesn't inherently care at all about race, age, sex, or what have you..... subservient class in line to functional objective and "goal" achieved, end of story. If "Proof of Work" (or else) need consume all living dynamics and/or resources on a planet(s) to fulfill the functional objective, so be it.
In such form, the unleashing of "A.I." on monetary markets might be argued much like the opening of Pandora's Box..... at least in as much that the "A.I." inherently holds no moral ethic in regard to it's economic ends while both it's own emergence AND adherence to is arguably just a reflective feedback loop of the moral ethic actively held and followed by the monetary slave class.

Worthy of note here, "money" and "currency" are NOT inherently the same thing.
That is to say, while "money" is a type of economic "currency", not all economic "currency" is "money".

What “decentralized” form of “money” do you know of?

leaves. sentiment. smiles. gratitude. all of these can be considered money. ... albeit not in your tight rigid definition to draw distinction from currency.

it's similar to how when you refine government well enough, by many measures, it's strained to call it government at all, and other words are sought. which is pretty much what i'm getting at when advocating refining what money is to such an unobtrusive level it becomes mere accounting.

there's a saying that's urging itself to my mind from attempting to read all your reply... goes something like if you only look to what you've had, you'll only have what you've always had [that's doubtless butchering it ~ do you know the saying i'm trying to do?]. a "cant get there from here" type thing. requires thinking outside the box imposed upon us. cant find remedy by copying the same and presuming all there is, is that.

if leaves are too volatile for your preference, perhaps something else could be found from nature... maybe gold nuggets. & < insert scarcity essay >. but still, when the means become confused as ends... all kinds of maladies. < insert another essay on scarcity based maladies, confusing means & ends, resulting manufactured scarcity, betrayal and destruction/restriction of abundance, etc etc etc >

... i'm abbreviating/contracting these essays as this discussion's already overly long and unwieldly as is. n_n