I think if the goal of the currency is not to convert to fiat or make money overall then crypto is pretty anarchist by itself as it allow to create parallel markets. I like the spin of SolarCoin but in the end it falls in the pit of other coins because its value is measured in fiat. Nano in my opinions has a couple of issues. The community can be a bit crazy at times, at the end of the crypto craziness I ended up leaving the nano sub on reddit about it because people there were a bit intense. Also, I think it needed more developer involvement at least at the time I last interacted with them. I don't think there is anything wrong with proof of work, it's a matter of power sources. Problem is that most currencies don't care about energy sources.

hmmm, interesting question.

As currencies only work if they serve as mediums of exchange that is widely acceptable in exchange for goods and services. It would have to provide a value that everyone wants/needs. Traditionally governments used taxes to create the initial baseline demand for their issued currency.

The holding of a funds is a non-issue. (You might find Gnu Taler interesting https://taler.net/)

The hard problem is who/what creates value in the desired society and how to fairly allocate the value to the members who contribute that value.