The idea is intriguing, but I think the gist of it lies in your point about this "not being for everyone." This essentially makes a super common financial decis

The idea is intriguing, but I think the gist of it lies in your point about this "not being for everyone." This essentially makes a super common financial decision... "for everyone," in the sense that if you weren't sophisticated enough to set up a proper investment vehicle, or properly allocate all the money in your checking account, you don't need to worry about that anymore. However, I think the set of those folks and the set of folks you consider that this prob. "wouldn't be for" is probably pretty large. It's just an assumption, but I'd hazard a guess that most folks who don't set up more sophisticated investment vehicles are also folks who simply can't afford to, or who'd struggle with a checking account which suddenly could have less money than the day before. If you are not in that camp, I think you're very likely well versed enough to know you have a lot of options on what to do with your money should your checking account balance exceed your needs for a daily/monthly use. Also, I think the point with the bailout is a bit disingenuous on their part. True, if your account is not FDIC insured, then the government wouldn't need to bail YOU out. However, if we experience a similar crisis like we did in 2008, they will bail EVERYONE ELSE out. You just happen to be the sucker who will have paid into it but not been covered. If the argument were for eliminating FDIC insurance altogether, I'd be super onboard.