The article explains it with game theory. In game theory, there's a big difference between a so-called "iterated prisoner's dilemma" and a one-shot prisoner's

The article explains it with game theory. In game theory, there's a big difference between a so-called "iterated prisoner's dilemma" and a one-shot prisoner's dilemma. Call these IPD and OPD. Basically under the conditions of the past couple of decades, you could model Silicon Valley as an IPD. Under an IPD it always makes most sense to remain loyal. But because of macroeconomic and technological changes (what author calls 'The End of the Beginning'), Silicon Valley models more like an OPD these days. But under an OPD the winning strategy is to be self-interested. Anyone who has noticed the shift from IPD to OPD ahead of their peers is able to make big bucks -- if only at the cost of their reputations. (But again, we don't care about 'next time', this is a one-shot, so reputations are now next to worthless.) Specifically, with regard to SVB, depositors could have HODLed (if you will) as investors did for e.g. the run-up in GameStop. The article insinuates that in the past, under historic/IPD conditions in Silicon Valley, they probably would have. However, under contemporary conditions, OPD makes most sense, and most VCs, being savvy, sort of intuited this, and everyone tried to be the first out the door. There's a broader point as well, alluded to near the end of the article -- that even more broadly speaking, our whole civ is edging closer to being best modelled as an OPD, which in turn pushes more systems towards collapse, and in doing so, invites more regulations, which in turn tamp down on growth. So this article, if correct, comes with a gloomy forecast, and suggests that 'die fatten Jahre sind forbei' (the years of plenty are over) -- and not just for the Valley. Great article. Prescient and uncomfortable.