Relatedly, the FDIC is built as an insurance pool and has always stated coverage as a minimum with no explicit maximum coverage. It's entirely possible to see the FDIC's over-coverage here as an explicit "this pool has seen lower portfolio risk than expected" which may only indicate that past rates were higher than necessary versus real world risk profiles and that serves no expectation of future rate changes just a sign of a very healthy risk pool. (It's just as possible to argue that if the insurance pool was able to 100% cover the deposits in this event that actuaries should reevaluate the risks for the entire pool and decrease rates moving forward to stronger align with the expected minimum coverage and present risk assesment knowledge of the likelihood of events of this scale.)