I have no idea if this is correct or not, but by some accounts, there were noticeable issues with regular transfers which caused the initial concern about the bank. It's not like someone started this out of boredom.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-11/thiel-s-f...

They lost $12 billion on an interest rate bet. The fact they didn't need to mark it to market under an accounting rule didn't mean people ignored it. It was a giant, known problem. It's why they were out trying to raise capital.

I'm talking about the "rumors" that caused the bank run. From what I've read (quoted above), these weren't really rumors but problems with day-to-day transfers that prevented the fund(s) from completing their deals, in which case one has to be insane not to let their friends know that the bank is not transferring money like they are supposed to. In hindsight we know they had problems like you said, but the "spread rumors" part seems to have been triggered by legitimate problems with regular transfers.

It wasn't hindsight though. They filed their 10-k well before the run and it showed a disaster of a situation. Their balance sheet was progressively getting worse, it was already bad the 10-q before. People knew it was problematic months ago, this didn't come out of nowhere.

This seems like distinguishing between the snowflake that falls on a sheet of snow and starts an avalanche, and the snow that collects along the way. Both were necessary conditions for the avalanche, but is either more to blame? It's an imperfect analogy but my point is this: the problem is all the loose snow sitting on a slope in the first place.

Unless those first people were actively trying to create an insolvency crisis, it seems to me they were either being prudent or prescient. There's a reason it's called the "tragedy" of the commons, and not the "tyranny" of the commons.