Absolutely. And for the colloquial English phrase "dead weight" that would correspond to the portion of these fees which go above and beyond the cost of running the (high-utility) transaction network. Reducing the rent-seeking on this network also reduces both the colloquial and technical meanings of "deadweight".

But for the economic term "deadweight", additional deadweight loss can be reduced by anyone who can provide similar functionality to the current interchange network but at lower cost than the current network. This wouldn't reduce the colloquial "deadweight" because in theory 100% of the fees could already be going towards necessarily funding the existing network. But it would still reduce the economic deadweight of 1-4% tax on every transaction.