Those holding the Power Of Money will keep on using it as long as it has value to make sure they are alright (and screw the rest) hence they’ll keep on propping-up and buying out whomever controls Force and when those lose that control they’ll directly prop-up and buy out the yielders of Force.

Sure, they would’ve preferred it for the many to pay the full costs of formal yielders of Force whose main jobs is protect the holders of the Power Of Money and their assets from the rest - the way the system still works right now - but they can easilly afford to pay the yielders of Force directly if they have to.

Further, even if Money loses its value and hence its power, they’ll fall back to using what’s produced by the Assets they own (for example, food produced in fertile land) to pay the yielders of Force: in a total societal collapse (which, frankly, is unlikely) you can bet that the moneyed classes will use whatever power their money has left to either flee to places were society is not collapsing or setting themselves up as the Warlords of the subsequent age.

Anyways, the point anchoring my free thinking about this is that they’ll try to keep the very same ownership, dependency and control loops going, just at smaller and smaller sizes (i.e. instead of the society-wide “people have no option that directly or indirectly work for the owners of everything to pay for the place they live in and the food they eat who cost what they cost because just a few own everything” you’ll have a smaller sized version of it with a landowner whose land produces food and who uses that food and living areas in that land to pay a couple of armed people to stop the rest from taking the land and the food, so a smaller version of the societal loop we have now were the very people being exploited by money are the ones indirectly giving money the power to exploit them).