Still think everyone involved with the SVB fiasco should have lost their money beyond the FDIC limit

Everyone is from somewhere. Cofounder and CEO of Pinata. https://www.pinata.cloud/

not saying it’s right or wrong, just that was the line of thinking behind the decision.

Yes, absolutely. 

Let's protect businesses that concentrated risk in a single bank *and* then facilitated a bank run.

That'll teach em from doing it again.

couldn’t risk a bank with such a pivotal role in tech & finance (competitive advantage)

still mostly analog. patterns, builder, entrepreneur, analyzing your transactions since 2016

If it blows up, that's on you.

FDIC has limits.

You know what they are.

You can protect against it by diversifying across banks and putting your funds under the FDIC limit.

That is the law and the way banks work.

By choosing to save a bank, you are validating bad behavior by the bank.

you probably don’t think about liquidity enough // it is what it is  // build value, not valuation

As a founder that raised from SV and specifically chose not to put my funding in SVB, what do I get from that decision?

There were many upsides sold to me *to* put the funding in SVB.

By saving SVB, my decision was invalidated and we are deciding winners and losers in a way that is not congruent with the law.

We did not do that during the farming crisis in the 1980s which had a direct impact on me.

Either the FDIC limit is the limit or it's not. 

If it's not, make it the law.

Can't pick and chose winners.

many were seemingly just bystanders but learned the value of diversification of cash holdings