Re:Urgent: Sign the petition now
by dlubarov on Sunday March 12, 2023 @12:33AM
(#35117022)
They did already have 77% of the collateral in short-term T-bills, and the 23% in cash was spread out across multiple banks. They held $3.3bn at SVB, but that's out of $42bn total.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
So then it sounds like they probably had 10-15 banks (entirely reasonable for them to be expected to open this many accounts at unique banks, given their business model) which is a far cry from the 1200 OP complained about.
If your entire business model revolves around moving multiple billions of dollars via an asset-backed stablecoin model, it's reasonable to expect you to have dozens of bank accounts, in at least 3 time zones, and likely more.
I don't know why people (not saying you specifically) seem to have this expectation any entity should be able to deposit billions of dollars risk-free at a single institution. The same people who intuitively grasp the value of having crypto distributed amongst multiple wallets rather than all in one, somehow can't grasp infinite $ cannot be deposited at a bank without risk.
If you're leaving 7 to 9+ figures in a single account, then either buy insurance, or only do business with banks which offer excess insurance.
I'm not sure any private insurance exists that can cover a $42m deposit?
It does. In the context of the financial services and reinsurance industries, $42 million is not an enormous amount of money.