I don't think you can get much out of an explanatory grid focused on interest, given that the interest of capital, whether temporarily fictitious or real, has not posed, historically speaking, a problem the functioning of capitalism, in the logic of which it fits perfectly, to the point of having long constituted one of its most powerful engines.
The real systemic problem today is not the interest of debts, but the fact that, unlike previous phases where real capital stemmed from fictitious capital * and came to increase social capital, fictitious capital which is consumed or which is repaid with a new loan disappears when it matures without anything remaining. This has the consequence that to maintain its influence on the activity producing value (abstract), it is necessary constantly to increase the mass of fictitious capital, since it is necessary each time to provide a volume of reimbursement (which is therefore destroyed) and a capital at least equivalent to the previous one, to play the role of expired securities. It is therefore not on the interest that the game is played, but on a linear increase in the capital: during its destruction, a base 100 must be replaced by 200, then in turn by 300, then 400, etc. .. In this sense, credit, instead of being a fortifier, has become a simple palliative which permanently infuses the economy, producing less and less value.
Things are therefore much more serious, because this frantic race for an increasingly uncertain future valuation leads to the black hole that evokes
Sen-no-sen here.
* The goods contain the value only until its marketing, after that what is no longer for the buyer that a consumer good or a short or medium term investment is immediately destroyed (consumption) or gradually (automobile, home), while the value returns, increased, in the capital-money of the industrialist.