Someone please nitpick my basic banking knowledge and assumptions here. I saw the new rule that the backstop would protect deposits but not investors and creditors. This seems like an ideal situation (even as a huge proponent of the capitalist risk/reward structure) because it protects the people that would just like somewhere to hold their money but that are not trying to make anything other than a non-negative return. They were not trying to "invest" in the bank, they were just making a deal with the bank that they would allow them to lend out the money as long as the bank guaranteed to *not* play fast and loose with it. The old style of banks that just used those deposits to fund boring loans with high lending requiremnts meant that there was never fear that they would quickly lose 10% of their valuation due to default. Now we have to worry that our banks are buying shit like crypto, sketchy loans from pure mortgage close/sell institutions, and actual investments that carry quite a bit more risk than they did in the past. Given that depositors are still just looking for a place to plant money at an assumed 0% return why would it be a bad thing to guarantee they are all paid and that the investors and creditors get paid last? If the answer is that "no investors will fund banks that are propping up bad mortgages with investments (or vice versa)," well that is the world that I want to be in.