> In FIAT money lending is the act of money creation

That depend on how you view money. Lending does increase the volume of money in circulation, in that sense it creates money. But that view is too simple to be useful.

The regulators that regulate, and in particular control reserve ratios (complex calculations that banks have to make about the relationships between their various assets) and base interest rates are the real creators of money.

The side stepping of those regulators is interesting. The conventional view is that it will lead to the same sort of financial instability as existed before the gold standard was abolished and we (pretty much the entire western world) moved to modern banking and fiat currency.

A hundred years of quite stable money was quite an achievement.

> That depend on how you view money. Lending does increase the volume of money in circulation, in that sense it creates money. But that view is too simple to be useful.

Far from being too simple, it is the primary method of money creation in modern economies.

> The regulators that regulate, and in particular control reserve ratios (complex calculations that banks have to make about the relationships between their various assets) and base interest rates are the real creators of money.

Simply setting rates does not create money. It can influence it, but it is not the ultimate cause. Lending is. Reserve banks can and do lend, but commercial banks are responsible for the majority of money creation.