The literature on the 100% money proposal often reveals some confusion when it comes to its implications for the banking sphere. We argue that this can be partly explained by a failure to have distinguished between two divergent approaches to the proposal: the “Currie–Fisher” (or “transaction”) approach, on the one hand, which would preserve banking; and the “Chicago Plan” (or “liquidity”) approach, on the other hand, which would abolish banking. This division among 100% money proponents stemmed, in particular, from different definitions of money, and different explanations of monetary instability. The present paper attempts to clarify this divergence of views.