@steven yes, it's a tough topic, and I don't have many answers myself (still learning to ask the right kinds of questions...) I agree that a new kind of money wouldn't make all our problems go away, but to me that sounds like giving in to the evolutionary tale of an economic teleology as an unstoppable law of nature: "we can't do anything about it, so let's stop thinking about it."
I recently read The End of Finance by Massimo Amato and Luca Fantacci (this) -- it traces the history of money and finance from the GFC backwards and shows how the current monetary and financial system is the result of a series of contingent decisions taken at institutional level throughout history. It also shows that the current monetary architecture of medium of exchange + unit of account + store of value comes from very precise political decisions. It really helped me look at money from a different perspective and start to break it down in its separate components. If anybody has read it too, would love to hear their thoughts.
If instead we look at money as a technology, something inherently artificial, perhaps new possibilities open up in terms of design and reengineering, especially in the case of "digital money". Sure, every tool comes with its trade offs but perhaps it is a matter of trying to fail better? I am still grappling with Robin Hood cryptoequity but I believe it's about to do something radically new, that perhaps raises other questions but that it's certainly worth pursuing and experimenting with. There's always the risk that Crypto 2.0 turns into Economics 2.0, for that reason (human) constraints are important : )