> I'm perplexed, then, to see so many people gleefully celebrate the collapse of an institution that helped level the playing field for people from all backgrou

> I'm perplexed, then, to see so many people gleefully celebrate the collapse of an institution that helped level the playing field for people from all backgrounds. "Making loans to startups that otherwise wouldn't get a loan because they are too risky for traditional banks" does certainly grant more people access to the high-cost high-risk world of tech startups, but I dunno that it's a terribly compelling method to level the playing field because it does nothing to challenge the system itself, only gives new players a chance to spin the wheel. The backlash against tech in general stems from the system itself and the things it prioritizes, like massive scale at all costs in service to investors being a vehicle for the rich to become richer. If you start from a position like "tech billionaires and their antics are a significant source of problems in the world" then a bank like SVB that lets more "normal" folks participate doesn't do anything to stop those said billionaires from _also_ profiting off these new incoming startups, except making the pool to choose from even bigger. It's frustration with the system that drives these sentiments, not specifically SVB as the "secret backdoor for poors into the startup casino".