"Adam is going to deposit $1,000 in the bank. At the same time, the bank can then loan $900 to Nathan."

This is, of course, wrong. Banks lend first and find cash later. Some banks don't even take deposits. They get funds from investors and other banks. That's why many Commonwealth countries abandoned reserve requirements long ago. If a bank has reliable access to liquidity - from other banks and the central bank, say - there is no need for it to keep reserves on its books.

Reserve requirements can constrain banks that use deposits as a source of funds, but if a bank wants to lend Nathan $1000, it can take in $1000 in deposits, or sell debentures, or tap the money market, and it can borrow $100 from another bank to meet its reserve requirements.

Banks are, however, capital constrained. They cannot lend more than the regulators believe they can afford to lose on bad loans. So it was never possible for a bank to lend "an infinite amount" from a small deposit. Thus, it is not true that "the regulations in force are based on the reserve requirements of banks." The regulations are based on the bank's capital ratios.

In other words, everything this article says about banking law is wrong. Bitcoin has value for the same reason that Trump is President: stupid people do stupid things.