Bearer cash vs collateral

I am thinking about QE and nor QE debate.

If we are a standard currency banker, then why did both excess reserves and Treasuries both expand? Bearer cash went on deposit.  Bearer cash is not on the currency bankers structured queue, or rather, it is there as one large interest swap of zero.

  Apparently it seems the economy has found agreement on better investments today than yesterday. Interpret that in any way you want for now.  Except we are central bankers, we get there the same but take the extra seigniorage  loop around the S/L rebalancing procedure..

Is it QE? What is the third party contract? It is QE if the third party is setting seigniorage prices outside of priceable congestion. If Treasury is raising the Fed tax, for example, by other than market pricing.  Then the translation bearer cash to collateral on deposit,  has an uncertainty wedge.

In the standard two color, there is a contract on the market making risk account, the matching error that must be corrected asynchronously by interest swaps.   If that market account is at risk by a small percentage, there is a wedge in the discount rate, a quarter, maybe half point to cover it.

In other words, if that seigniorage is congestion priced, the system acts more like the simple two color system. We end up with a standard ATM fee on the bearer cash system, we don't care, it is not a killer. It is the variance in that, it is currently subject to Treasury debt planning, not market planing. We pay more ATM fee than fair, it is much closer to 1.5% because of primary dealer planning.