That's a somewhat metaphorically phrased question. We're architects of our own future.

We can create money that's stable and that avoids lopsided distribution. The 20% that have 80% (how Pareto worded it, in reality it's already much much worse) aren't "blessed" as if it was chance that they have their fortune. It's coded in the algorithm of the system so to speak and we can rewrite the code as we like.

Silvio Gesell's ideas of demurrage are a good start, but of course he lived 100 years ago and didn't have Internet. He thought of reforming the central bank but in his world there would still be a central bank. We can do even better.

The shortcomings of today's fiat system are a result of it being a quasi monopoly. The answer to any monopoly is normally markets and competition, everyone holds each other in check and quality is high and price low. Why don't we have a market of fiat currencies then. We'll hold the one's that have the best reputation for being stable. Stable issuers are rewarded by receiving demurrage fees similar to interest.

This would cause an amount of computational overhead when buying and selling as a multitude of exchange rates will have to be taken account. In Gesell's time this would have been impractical, but my phone now has 100x the power of a Cray-2 supercomputer from 1986 so we're good.

This all is however bad news if you don't have skills. An unskilled person, if they manage to somehow end up on the receiving end of a lopsided distribution, as unlikely as that is, could and will use their position to their advantage and just live at other's expenses.

Any other arrangement like the one I'm proposing above will lead to a competition in skills. Including skills of warfare and the like. These can get very brutal very soon as Earth's resources are becoming scarce and climate change fucks things up.

I think I'm fine with skills and the risk of lopsided distributions causing financial collapse and starvation outweighs everything else. Up to you.