Awesome. You do realize that money is part of macroeconomics. Most economists don't have any reason to ever care about it, except for those who specialize in this area.
Money is both micro and macro. It's actually the insistence to view micro-processes through the lens of macro creates heavy distortions in understanding money. The whole concept of liquidity influencing demand for money gets lost that way. Krugman, for example, wrote papers in the 80s which clearly indicate that he understands it, but now, 30 years later, he seems to have forgotten it.
An economist should have a basic grasp of both micro and macro.