A very interesting twist is to play with real money.

Set a sensible exchange rate to real money and treat the Monopoly money as “chips”.

The tactics and strategy significantly change because there is real external value to the assets and currency - but only for the duration of the game.

Apart from anything else it means the game ends much faster.

That's an interesting idea. I've had fun playing with another twist. Follow the rules strictly but start with 1/3 the usual starting money.

Sounds like this would just extend the period where people have to get lucky to gain an advantage. So it would appear more even for a longer time.

(I do agree that would be more fun)

Not necessarily if you follow the "all land must sell on first landing" rule that is often forgotten. (After landing on an unowned square, if you refuse to buy at list price, it must go to auction by the bank [with the bank still collecting the funds].) A smaller starting money supply potentially forces fewer "at list price" purchases and shrewder auction house strategies potentially advantaging auction house strategy over luck of landing on a square and getting that first refusal.

Does everyone have to put the same amount of money into it beforehand? How is the bank funded at the start and dissolved at the end?

> Set a sensible exchange rate to real money and treat the Monopoly money as “chips”.

Monopoly being not zero sum among the players makes that...interesting. As well as transfers from losing players to the winner, there is also potential for net transfer to or from the bank. How do you handle that?