Some of you probably already knew this, but today I learned the reason for SVB and Signature Bank's failures was because they refused to participate in reciprocal deposit networks to ensure deposits in excess of $250k were FDIC insured.

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

Writer. Head of Product @ Stablecore. Working on simple web hosting https://orbiter.host \ https://polluterofminds.com

Tell me more https://farcaster.xyz/kyletut/0x9489297a

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

The problem with this is that the people parking their money at these banks may have known the risk, but the banks DEFINITELY knew. They just thought that there wouldn't ever be an issue.

There are advantages for funds and founders of companies having large pools of money in a bank.

This is true of all banks, but very true of SVB because of the unique nature of VC and their startups. 

Not many companies carry that much cash on a regular basis.

That cash was an upside for everyone involved.

Fair, but maybe I don't understand the upside here. A bank can send those deposits out without the customer losing upside. So this still feels like a bank failure more than a depositor failure.

The average individual doesn't carry more than $250k in a bank account.

Everyone who would have been effected was a business or a high net worth individual that was taking advantage of the risk for the upside and didn't have to pay for the downside.

These people have CFOs or money managers.

They got caught with their pants down.