Do I really need to say why banks are terrible? What your begging for is fractional reserve banking through bitcoin to appear. Banks are EVIL. They do not create wealth in society they steal it by creating debt without paying for it. Their only needed service is to be a middle man to secure "funds" and provide better liquidity (real gold is not liquid), which right up until bitcoin is the only reason why they needed to exist.
The cheap credit that banks create through fractional reserves are DIRECTLY responsible for the misallocation of capital that causes unnecessary hard ship.
You're refuting your own argument again. The fractional reserve system is not evil, but the monopoly that governments/central banks on our money systems (traditionally) has caused the system to create it's own busts and recessions. But fractional banking per se is not the problem, rather the lack of competition is the problem. Bitcoin as a settlement system would attend to this problem and it also attends to the inefficiencies of the existing solutions.
Real gold is not liquid in a certain sense that it is costly to transport in relation to other solutions which exist to allow settlement without always moving assets such as gold (this is another reason why bitcoin doesn't actually need increased tps in order to stay relevant and valuable.
We can turn to Smith to understand how the system could be used to keep bank loans and money printers in check:
The whole paper money of every kind which can easily circulate in any country, never can exceed the value of the gold and silver, of which it supplies the place, or which (the commerce being supposed the same) would circulate there, if there was no paper money. If twenty shilling notes, for example, are the lowest paper money current in Scotland, the whole of that currency which can easily circulate there, cannot exceed the sum of gold and silver which would be necessary for transacting the annual exchanges of twenty shillings value and upwards usually transacted within that country. Should the circulating paper at any time exceed that sum, as the excess could neither be sent abroad nor be employed in the circulation of the country, it must immediately return upon the banks, to be exchanged for gold and silver. Many people would immediately perceive that they had more of this paper than was necessary for transacting their business at home; and as they could not send it abroad, they would immediately demand payment for it from the banks. When this superfluous paper was converted into gold and silver, they could easily find a use for it, by sending it abroad; but they could find none while it remained in the shape of paper. There would immediately, therefore, be a run upon the banks to the whole extent of this superfluous paper, and if they showed any difficulty or backwardness in payment, to a much greater extent; the alarm which this would occasion necessarily increasing the run
Hayek also explains this in the denationalization of money which is simply an argument about what would unfold if the monopoly on money printing was ever broken. This exactly what bitcoin did, and there is no part of the argument that requires the new money to have a higher tps than bitcoin.
John Nash also gives an extensive argument to how such a system would benefit the people by being used not so much by the citizenry but by the meta players.
I've cited and summarized these arguments, and they ARE founded:
https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/a-general-summary-for-john-nashs-proposal-ideal-money/