My approach is that money is a broken promise and a fraud and does not deserve a right to speak in democratic process.
If we talk in terms of principles and principled practices, we need to start from ground level of "group of self appointed people", not from people appointed by money. If we want to uphold principle of horizontal democracy and freedom of expression, every human has a voice and say and is free to suggest e.g. that a monetary system in some form would service common good. If this suggestion is consensually approved by the group of self-appointed money, next stage is to suggest what kind of monetary system would best service common good. A person suggesting fraudulent FIAT money system would have equal voice with those who want to reject it and block it from consensus approval. The person or group of self-appointed people wanting FIAT system would have freedom to walk away and create their money system as they wish, but no right to force it upon people who reject it and either don't want any money system or different system based on equality and honesty. More generally, a group of self appointed people engaged in democratic practice do have the right to protect the democratic process from disruption and sabotage by consensually approved procedures, in other words "censor anyone they want" from participating and speaking in that process. In practice such decisions are never easy nor simple, but a group of people engaged in horizontal democracy cannot stay indefinitely captive to abuse by single individual or group of people.
How does this relate to Venezuela? Group of self-appointed people has right to start process of socialist revolution to remove money out of politics by working through representative system and taking hold of state structures. It is more complicated (and precarious) approach compared to direct anarchic democracy, which I'm preferential to, but of course I stand in solidarity with comrades who have chosen that route.
= new reply since forum marked as read