There's no need for an issuer. China did fine between 1550 and 1850 with ingots of silver. In fact, the more money is free of issuer, the better. If there is to be an issuer, let the markets judge their creditworthiness, free of state intervention.
I fully agree with you. However, you should maybe read "Debt, the first 5000 years", by Graeber. It illustrates somewhat the fact that most money found actually its origin, not in markets, but by states, wanting to finance war and needing the seigniorage to pay their armies.
Money's intrinsic value rarely, if ever, comes close to its monetary value (and this includes gold and silver.) And this has worked fine for millennia.
In fact, this is even so by definition. If a monetary asset had an intrinsic (usage) value, equal to its face value, then it wouldn't be money !
After all, what is money ? Money is what is used mostly as an intermediate asset. As such, the demand for it is MAINLY to be used as an intermediate asset (temporary store of value). Hence the demand for it is *much higher* than the demand for its usage as a consumption or production capital good (which determines its intrinsic value).
So by definition, the demand for money must be much higher to be used as intermediate asset than as consumption/capital good, and hence the price of it, determined by that demand (in the face of the same offer) must be much higher than its intrinsic value.
Otherwise it wouldn't be money.