No but yes, it is complicated to really explain that to people who don't understand anything about what fractional reserve is in the first place.  You know like the people in this thread that think LN and other layers are fractional reserve? 

In the end it is still the system we have.  The reserve requirement still applies at the time of lending even with a 0 reserve requirement.

Put another way, the bank can lend to 0 but not to -1.  I know that seems retarded and it is, sort of.  Sort of because it is a retarded system itself so you have to judge it based on its own rules.   Let me try to restate it another way.  

A bank can lend out 100% of its deposits now, it can't lend out 101%. There is no "reserve" left after that.

Again it sounds stupid so here's another way to put it.  

Under the old system, say a small bank had 100 million, in a 10% reserve and 3% low reserve it could loan out 1 billion dollars with 100 million as a reserve, it could then have deposits drop to say 30 million and not be forced to bring in equity but at that point it would not be able to lend more.  That was the old way a10% lending reserve and 3% low reserve. 

Today that bank can't loan unlimited money.  What they could loan in this scenario, is 1 billion plus 100 million, or 1.1 billion.  If their deposits dropped to equilibrium they are not forced to balance but they are also technically bankrupt anyway and begging for a bail out.   

At the same time they could in theory survive a long time that way with payments being sent in by those who hold their debt.  ie Mortgage payments and other credit inflows. Where it really breaks is when defaults start.  And when employment drops and with it weekly deposits and the capital float that comes with it. 

Do you see why I don't try to explain this to people who think "tHe LiGHtNiNg nEtWoRk iS fRaCtiOnAL rEsERvE"?