Re:SVB Hall of Shame
by benatkin on Thursday March 16, 2023 @11:19PM
(#35192577)
On Friday I was feeling that Circle/USDC was wrong that those who initiated transfers on Thursday should have them completed even if others with uninsured (above $250K) lost theirs.
> We have reason to believe that under applicable FDIC policy, transfers initiated prior to a bank entering receivership would have otherwise been processed normally.
In other words it shouldn't be entirely dependent on whether they were in the bank run. Earlier transfers, yeah.
In a bank run situation people were rushing to the bank and tying up the phone lines. Panicking shouldn't be encouraged to such a degree as to make millions of dollars depend on it.
The amount recoverable ended up not depending on whether an SVB customer attempted a late withdrawal. And that's good. I would have expected it even if depositors had to settle for a portion of their funds.
From their article:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.circle.com/blog/an-update-o...
> We have reason to believe that under applicable FDIC policy, transfers initiated prior to a bank entering receivership would have otherwise been processed normally.
In other words it shouldn't be entirely dependent on whether they were in the bank run. Earlier transfers, yeah.
In a bank run situation people were rushing to the bank and tying up the phone lines. Panicking shouldn't be encouraged to such a degree as to make millions of dollars depend on it.
The amount recoverable ended up not depending on whether an SVB customer attempted a late withdrawal. And that's good. I would have expected it even if depositors had to settle for a portion of their funds.