So it seems that in an economy without money, money will arise automatically, in the form of debts that are to a greater or lesser extent formalised. So why do economies need central banks? What's wrong with that kind of "informal money"?
I have a strong suspicion that we don't; that it's governments that need central banks.
This is generally the way we react to that sort of things. And even if things still sometimes break (in slightly different ways than before) these systems have allowed us enormous amounts of economic growth.
The central bank won't have to set the interest rates anymore if the reserve requirement is something sane like 20% or 30% as banks are limited in their bank reserves and thus incentivized to choose the right interest rate for themselves. This also eliminates the need for QE.
You still need the central bank as an inter banking network by the way.
Say you give me a donkey and I give you an "IOU - one donkey or equivalent". That IOU represents my debt to you. If my reputation is good, you could trade that IOU to someone else for say, 10 chickens, you pass my debt to them. If my reputation is really good, your town could pass my IOU around for different goods and then my IOU acts just like money.
Cash (and money) works the same way as an IOU. It's just that the owner of the debt is abstract and far removed from the holder of the cash.