This may be unpopular, but I'm not totally convinced that controlling the risk of something like which bank you use is something to be mitigated at early stages

This may be unpopular, but I'm not totally convinced that controlling the risk of something like which bank you use is something to be mitigated at early stages. At least not at an individual decision level. For arguments sake... Whether a silicon valley startup succeeds or fails already takes large influences from a survivorship bias, and they're all basically going to cheat in some way to establish themselves. Whether that's Uber ignoring local taxi laws, Atlassian messing up multiple customer accounts, or some web service you bet your business on that has never tested their backups. So with a decision like banking say a series A startup with their first $5million is really clever and splits their money evenly between two banks, and one bank fails. That may still be just as crippling to a startup that now needs to distract themselves with fundraising again earlier than expected, that doesn't have a proven track record, and just lost half their money that their investors may still demand a return on. So the survivorship bias might just be that the startups that chose the other bank, as one less decision to dwell on and distract them, are the ones that survived. Or the startups that were extremely diligent and spent a great deal of time de-risking themselves from bank exposure died... because they spent too much time not getting a product to customers. So maybe the better question is, at what point should a company to begin to assess banking as a risk to be mitigated.