I try out Nick Rowe's model

He has another thought experiment, which has a lot of references to definitions unknown.  I will try out my simple model.

Set up:
I have 30 member banks, 29 have 10% of NGDP on deposit with the central bank bot. One has 10% of GDP out on loan. The central bank algorithm is rigged to break even, its expenses paid by declaring losses, and are small.

Shock:
The central bank bot sets future rates up by a quarter point.  The one bank with all loans pays more  money in or reduces lending.  The depositing banks get more out, or reduce deposits.

Outcome:
  Dunno yet.  If the bot had that knowledge it would have left rates unchanged.  If the one member bank is just now setting up manufacturing for low cost anti-gravity machines, then its boom times, otherwise bust.

Conclusion:
The imbalance between banks means there is asymmetric information; a large chunk of insider information has not been monetized.

The problem is that we have no smooth exit and entry for member banks, so when one bank is in trouble, they drag them all down.  That is what we have.  For some reason a member bank took out a 2.4 trillion dollar loan and we still have no idea what it was used for or when  the profits come in.