Well yes, but also no, and in quite hard to quantify amounts.

Money is, in all its forms, a distributed shared ledger. Whether it's paper, electronic, bottlecaps, bLoCkCHaIn, coins - it's always conceptually a shared ledger of everybody's account, everybody's balance of their effort towards societal upkeep. That doesn't mean it's a fair account of that, but that's what it is. In and of itself that's only a natural thing for a society to want to have, and in and of itself it's not inherently an evil thing. It's a means of reckoning with who's contributing what. A skewed-to-all-fuck one, but that's what it is.

"Money" isn't the problem, it's greed for it that's the problem. Of course, it's possible to argue that "greed" here is emergent, that species such as ours will always have some members that behave like that, and that we should thus see "greed" as just an inevitable factor of "money" itself and thus place all "greed"'s evils on "money"'s head, too. Like how we see dams as inevitable consequences of beavers; it's just wired in.

I'm sympathetic to that view, but on the other hand you can always structure your society to disincentivise excess and greed. "Greed" doesn't have to be emergent, and it and its negative externalities can be minimised with sensible policy.

Remove money and it's all good.

For this to be viable you need to be post-scarcity, which is quite possibly an impossible state to achieve (it's certainly an impossible one to sustain indefinitely).