In the United States proposals to separate money creation from credit intermediation regularly resurface as remedies for financial instability. In Argentina, they also feature in arguments that dollarization requires full-reserve banking. This paper reviews the historical and modern versions of these proposals and highlights the structural disadvantages that make them inadvisable. Restrictions on specific monetary liabilities encourage substitution outside the regulated perimeter, while separating payments from lending sacrifices informational and contractual complementarities. Recent crises demonstrate that full backing of transaction deposits alone cannot resolve fragility arising from excessive leverage, asset losses, and unstable funding. The paper concludes that dollarization does not require full-reserve banking and outlines an alternative prudential framework based on stronger capital, external liquidity protected from domestic political appropriation, limits on balance-sheet mismatches, and explicit arrangements for emergency liquidity and bank resolution.