What does a business being conservative have to do it with it being able to handle its bank account suddenly disappearing?

Equity holders of three banks just lost all of it - that is exactly what you're asking for.

You've baked the answer into your question. They wouldn't have a bank account singular.

In fact nobody recommends holding one bank account, under any circumstances. Banks can and do freeze accounts for any reason. You always have some backups standing by.

You also don't keep all your assets that way. Businesses can hold reserves in stocks or bonds or gold or cash in a safe just like everyone else.

What price are VCs paying for concentrating too much of their portfolios into a bank that was careless? No price. And that is what is upsetting some people.

The VCs didn’t concentrate their money like this for no reason. They got some benefit out of it, surely (easier access to loans for their portfolio companies, I suspect). And VCs are, or should be, sophisticated enough to be accountable for concentrating their capital without purchasing insurance.

There’s no clear way for VCs to pay the price they should pay without some startups being collateral damage. I think that’s the crux of the disagreement about what should have been done.

VC portfolio companies don't need loans; that's what they have all that cash for. It's also why SVB had everything in treasuries because they couldn't loan it out.

Founders used SVB because of hearing things like how regular banks, if they see you have a failed startup in your history, might not give you a home loan. (And because it was trendy.)

Venture debt is a thing. I worked for a startup that had a loan through SVB ... so I don't think you're quite correct, though I don't know how common those loans were.

In fact, here's a page on the SVB website about venture debt: https://www.svb.com/startup-insights/venture-debt/how-does-v...