Fractional reserve is still fiat, because it’s effectively a shell game. The fiat simply isn’t seen unless people demand delivery. It’s a method of extracting the fractional or postponing insolvency.

Edit: I misunderstood this part of the statement, as it’s a bit odd, but yes “this includes… is allowed” is [mostly] correct, and has our first statements in agreement. Note that by “[mostly]”, I mean we had a “fractional reserve” system while there was also a gold window open at federal banks, per below note. ”Mostly”, because being able to exchange fiat paper currency for gold and “fractional reserve” are not necessarily exclusive. The gold window was open in some capacity until 1971(ish), dependent on the party.

Edit (ctd): The United States began using fractional reserve banking in the early 19th century, but it became more formalized with the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, which set reserve requirements for banks. This system allowed banks to hold only a portion of deposits as reserves while lending out the rest.

Now, the way that it’s currently possible to exchange fiat for physical at a private store is interesting within that concept, but that can be done with crypto as well.

Crypto however, does not draw its value from government assurance of regulation, promises to pay treasury bonds, nor “full faith and credit”, but from being a public ledger and fulfilling other characteristics of money.

I assure you that your statement (“it’s fiat when nothing backs it” + “crypto is fiat”) is incorrect, and you should do more study on the issue. I can try pointing you to some resources if you want, but won’t argue this - my username is mostly intended as a jab at the “expert” class, but this is a stronger subject area of mine.