> Depositors have a reasonable expectation that when they choose a bank (especially a publicly traded bank that is regulated) that their deposits are safe @gar

> Depositors have a reasonable expectation that when they choose a bank (especially a publicly traded bank that is regulated) that their deposits are safe @garry, while it may be a reasonable expectation, it's always been very clear and _explicit_ that it's not a guarantee beyond $250k (or $500k). What's more troublesome is that VCs and Y! have portfolio companies that either didn't understand this and/or didn't take the time to shore up their exposure to this otherwise very easily, manageable risk. Open additional accounts, utilize CDARS, etc. -- there are so, so, so many incredibly simple, straightforward ways your portfolio companies could've mitigated this. And yes, I agree with you -- the risk _was_ negligible. But it was risk nonetheless. And the fact that the mitigation options are _so_ simple but that your portfolio companies didn't do this really brings into question their ability to manage cash / risk management in general. So then to ask for taxpayer money to bail out companies who didn't take the time, thought or energy to minimize exposure to this is what I think most people on this thread are pushing back on. > We're asking for depositors to be made whole and for regulation to prevent this from happening to depositors in the future. In fact, depositors can _already_ prevent this from happening from themselves.