I get bailing out depositors. It's not like you have that many options with our current system. You have to keep your liquid assets somewhere, banks are the onl

I get bailing out depositors. It's not like you have that many options with our current system. You have to keep your liquid assets somewhere, banks are the only option and they are going to do risky business with your assets. Maybe you should be more prudent when choosing your bank but it's not like you can avoid the risk or that depositing with SVB was caused by greed (at least I think not, correct me if I am wrong). Long term solution is imo obvious as well: decouple deposits and lending business. You should pay for having your money in a bank and being able to conveniently operate it. The bank should not do any businesses with the money (maybe something like buying government T-bills should be permitted) and profit purely from providing services: safety, transfers, payments. Loan making should be a separate industry. Gather capital, fulfill regulation and do business as it is today but not with deposits but with stakeholders capital. In such a setup there is little systemic risk: bank goes bust? Shareholders lose the money. No moral hazard of "I will deposit in this risky bank and the government bails me out if things go sour". Want to keep liquid assets conveniently? Pay for it. Want to invest in a loan making operation? Buy shares in a bank and accept the risk. The current system forces depositors to accept risks of loan making business just because they need a place to keep liquid assets. It's not like they were asked a question: "hey, do you want us to risk your money or do you prefer to pay for operational costs of your account but we keep the money safe?". If the question was asked then it would be very easy to say no to any kind of bailout.