No, you're completely missing the distinction between insolvent and liquidity problems, even though it was explained to you in the post you replied to.

A bank with liquidity problems borrows newly printed money from the central bank and repays them with the profit generated from its loans. An insolvent bank that made too many loans that won't be repaid can't repay loans the money printers might offer it and so still gets wiped out. (Its customers get bailed out, but its shareholders don't).

Sure, I can understand there's a difference. But what's not equivalent with what happened in FTX? It's essentially a bank run without the ability to get a lender of last resort. Banks are just more protected in this situations, but in the end they are still playing the same game as the crypto exchanges.

> what's not equivalent with what happened in FTX?

Banks openly lend money to a people who are not the bank's CEO and companies which are not run by the bank's CEO and make a profit on the vast majority of them repaying the money, though typically over a time frame of years, not days. This means the lender of last resort providing funds for those days also expects to get repaid

FTX secretly lent customer funds to a single company run by its CEO to bail it out, and there was no realistic prospect of that money ever being repaid.

If you honestly think that's "equivalent", I'll happily share Paypal details so I can look after some of the money in your bank account in what you consider to be the same way the bank does...

You are completely wrong.