I find it remarkable how this paper is often cited in orthodox economics for an example or proof of Mengerian’s theory that money emerges from a proto barter-ec

I find it remarkable how this paper is often cited in orthodox economics for an example or proof of Mengerian’s theory that money emerges from a proto barter-economy with the currency, the medium of exchange, being a good with intrinsic non-repudiable utility with rejection of need for base cooperation. Meanwhile, if you read the paper, the author makes quite the opposite statement, that money and medium of exchange emerge as credit in cooperative societies and they rather focus on solving the problem of finding a unit of account on some commonly used good - which resembles a more Chartalist account of the emergence of money in societies. Hence, this paper is actually a counter argument to monetarist ideas, and gives more credence to the Keynesian assumption that debt/credit relations between economic actors play a non-neglectable role in the behavior of agents.