"While the FDIC guarantees deposits up to $250,000, the overwhelming majority of SVB deposits exceeded that amount."

"It was the bank of choice for many tech start-ups. Without access to their cash, those companies would have difficulty meeting payroll. Additionally, the sudden collapse of SVB could lead companies and individuals who have deposits in other similar financial institutions to withdraw their money starting on Monday, triggering more bank runs, and more bank collapses.... Defenders of this decision will try to make it seem as if it’s an extraordinary, one-off decision by regulators, but in practice, it has created a huge moral hazard by signaling that the $250,000 FDIC limit on deposit insurance does not exist in practice...."

From "Silicon Valley Bank Depositor Bailout Makes Mockery of ‘Too Big to Fail'" by Philip Klein (National Review).

I'm not linking to this because I agree with it. I don't know what the right answer was or what the real risks were. 

Here's what Elizabeth Warren says, "Silicon Valley Bank Is Gone. We Know Who Is Responsible" (NYT): "These recent bank failures are the direct result of leaders in Washington weakening the financial rules.... Had Congress and the Federal Reserve not rolled back the stricter oversight, S.V.B. and Signature would have been subject to stronger liquidity and capital requirements to withstand financial shocks. They would have been required to conduct regular stress tests.... Repealing the 2018 legislation that weakened the rules for banks like S.V.B. must be an immediate priority for Congress.... [I]f we are to deter this kind of risky behavior... those responsible not be rewarded.... [E]xecutives must also be held accountable... Where needed, Congress should empower regulators to recover pay and bonuses."