The government's responsibility is to ensure the integrity of our financial banks. It isn't the responsibility of the depositor, nor are they capable, to evaluate a regional bank's (the 18th largest bank in the USA) balance sheet. The FDIC is not without blame; there should be regulation that the bank's bonds should have been marked to the market.
This is akin to blaming a patient for medical malpractice — "why didn't the patient choose a better doctor".
>The government's responsibility is to ensure the integrity of our financial banks
Correct. Thats why they shut SVB down. It is not the government's responsibility to ensure the deposits of every individual depositor.
>This is akin to blaming
There is no blame. The depostors money is lost*. That is a fact, an event that already occurred.
>why didn't the patient choose a better doctor
Just like with a hospital, they can sue SVB (well, not anymore). Some things just aren't fair. But "thing not being fair" does not mean "and now the government shall make it fair."
The law has always been $250K (or some other limit) since the FDIC was created, hundreds (thousands?) of banks have failed since, and sometimes the depositors were burned. Somehow VCs think they are special because they are "disruptive" or whatever but they are not. The other times depositors were burned it wasn't because it was their "fault" or not, that isn't part of the consideration.
This is akin to blaming a patient for medical malpractice — "why didn't the patient choose a better doctor".