It's different because banks with liquidity issues can be unwound and the depositors made whole using the proceeds, but that's not possible with these insolvent

It's different because banks with liquidity issues can be unwound and the depositors made whole using the proceeds, but that's not possible with these insolvent banks no matter how much time they're given. Sure, maybe they could pay out the face value of their deposits in a few decades when their treasuries mature, but that'd actually be a worse deal for depositors than just receiving whatever fraction of their deposits can be paid out from the fair market value of those treasuries right now - if they're willing to wait they can just invest in the same treasuries themselves, but they can also invest the money or spend it in other ways if they'd prefer. In more concrete terms, the Fed has a funding scheme in place right now that lends banks money to smooth over any liquidity problems they're having and ensure they can process withdrawals. That funding scheme lets them borrow against assets based on their face value ignoring losses due to interest rates, but it still charges current market interest rates, which means they're bleeding out money that way. It didn't save First Republic Bank and neither would any other solution that didn't involve either depositors taking a loss or the FDIC making up that loss using its own funds, because they were insolvent, not just lacking liquidity. The very real gap between assets and liabilities to depositors had to be filled from somewhere.