Consider how the world worked prior to the use of money. We were hunter/gatherers. The best way to survive was to cooperate as a part of a community. Earning a living was all about having enough of the essentials to live from day to day. The essentials in this context are food, clothing and shelter. Importantly, as a community the goods collected were distributed across the community according to need. There was no concept of hoarding, indeed no need for hoarding - food did not keep for long, there was no sense of fashion and so clothing was worn primarily for warmth, and no one needed more than a single modest home (typically a cave or a wooden hut). Instead there was a symbiotic relationship between the individual and the community (a united we stand, divided we fall type philosophy to life).
Now fast forward to the introduction of money which ultimately led to a specialisation of labour (Adam Smith type economic principles). Now people could be greedy. They could hoard money. They did not need to work for the benefit of the community generally, but instead for their own insatiable appetite for more. Inheritance became possible. Inequality ensued. Then we saw game theory defeating community and, more importantly, working to the detriment of the economy.
We are all familiar with Keynsian economics and spending multipliers which boost GDP and contribute to higher employment, better standards of living, etc. Hoarding of money works counter to Keynsian principles.
So it is easy to see that if there were a means of removing the negative aspects of a fiat currency and defeating the hoarding of money that society as a whole would benefit. The expiry of money (which is not the same as inflation) might achieve that objective.
Inflation results in a price/wage spiral which is incredibly damaging for an economy and if wages keep up with prices then this would not achieve the same objective as that discussed above in relation to the expiry of money.
This is very much a utopian idea because all else being equal, if such a system were to be introduced in a single jurisdiction then people would simply hoard wealth elsewhere. However, it is an interesting academic exercise.
Ultimately, we would need to replicate the hunter/gatherer model. So each day a person would start with a clean slate. Each person would only need enough food to survive and so anything hunted or gathered that day which was surplus to requirement would be shared before it perished or maybe exchanged for something else (food for clothing or for tools that somebody else had made that day perhaps). In this way people's time is measured more fairly. I spend my day hunting, you spend your day collecting fruit and vegetables while someone else makes clothing from the skins of yesterday's kills. At the end of the day everyone eats and everyone is clothed. Everyone is happy and tomorrow we go again.
So the way that this may work is a day to day currency. Based on your contribution to the community that day (which could also be in terms of non-tangible services such as teaching, nursing, etc.) you would be entitled to share in the output of the community (food, clothing, etc.) according to need. Tomorrow the currency for today becomes obsolete and we go again.
How much better might our society be if we were able to implement such a model?
The problem that we have is that we live in a very complex society now which requires infrastructure investment. How might we develop a currency that expires and also encourage long term investments (buildings of roads, airports, etc). This takes us on a path to nationalisation of all infrastructure which tends towards a flawed communist model (so let us not dwell on that any more).
The banking model to fund infrastructure projects is reliant on the hoarding of wealth and the encouragement of investment. Catch 22.
Another problem is in quantification of productivity of each person. Does money become something that represents time expended rather than the value of the output - so we invent a "time bank". That might be fairer as nurses and teachers would be paid the same hourly rate as Hollywood actors or football stars. But logistically, who becomes the arbiter of time banked by each person each day?
It would again require full centralisation. Each person delivers their output to a central power and is provided with all that they need (are we heading back to a communist model again - I fear that this is where such a model always ends up).
Perhaps the imperfections of money are simply the price that we have to pay for living in a capitalist society for which there appears to be no credible alternative. It is the least worst mechanism which is probably why we have evolved economically as we have to where we are today.