What it says though, is that bailing it out is off the table.

Which has an effect on the investors outcome, hence help depositor better, or at lower cost.

It's an investors, depositors, and tax payers dilema.

The brightest and only fair outcome would be that a private funds/bank aquires SVB. That way everyone is made whole at the expense of nobody. A very unlikely scenario given nobody would touch a beyond help entity with, potentially, liabilities turning out greater than the overall assets left. Intengible assets may save the day, still a bit of hope there.

It says exactly that:

“ Janet Yellen said on Sunday that the US government was working closely with banking regulators to help depositors at Silicon Valley Bank but dismissed the idea of a bailout. […] “Let me be clear that during the financial crisis, there were investors and owners of systemic large banks that were bailed out . . . and the reforms that have been put in place means we are not going to do that again,” Yellen said. “But we are concerned about depositors, and we’re focused on trying to meet their needs.”“

The quote says the opposite of that. Depositors are not investors or owners. How can so many people misread this?

Reread it.

She is saying the bank will go out of business, and any people who owned stock in it will lose all of that money, hence the difference from 2008. And then continues on to say that _depositors_, i.e. the people who had savings accounts there, will be helped (although she notably didn't commit to 100%).

I think we should assume that they are going to be making the advance deposit earlier in the week rather than later, and it will be as large as they can possibly make it.