Yeah, Zerohedge is good at panic mongering.
A legally enforceable netting agreement with a counterparty creates a single legal obligation for all transactions (called a netting set) under the agreement. Therefore, when banks have such agreements with their counterparties, contracts with negative values (an amount a bank would pay to its counterparty), can offset contracts with positive values (an amount owed by the counterparty to the bank).
The above, from my prior link, shows part of the reason why the "Net current credit exposure (NCCE) fell 6%, or $19 billion, to $279 billion, the lowest level since the third quarter of 2007".
$279 billion at risk, instead of $230 trillion.
If John lends Bob $1,000,000,...if Sue goes bankrupt, John becomes unhedged and becomes on the hook for the full million.
Yes, John lent $1,000,000 and can lose $1,000,000.
Maybe we should outlaw loans?
But ... but ... but you said that only the net matters, and the net was zero in this case. Now you're saying that the gross amount is what is important (if another party goes bankrupt)? The gross of derivatives is $300 trillion, not $279 billion.