What crypto losses you're talking about? The ones from centralized custody operators that hold your money in arbitrary way rendering your balance on web page in crypto currency or something else?
This is wrong for two reasons:
(1) The insurance limit applies per owner per ownership class; its possible to have accounts in more than one ownership class, and thus more than $250k insured.
(2) Recovery of the insured amount is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Recovery of additional amounts is possible, and FDIC will make an effort to make it happen, but that's no guarantee.
And stop acting like any uninsured money evaporates in a bank failure.
Actually probably just stop talking about banks. This whole thread is an embarrassment of “smart people with strong opinions about things they have zero knowledge about”.
I wonder how this situation looks outside of US in more distressed economies ie. Argentina.
But SVB is a much bigger bank with a much larger share of uninsured deposits than a typical bank failure. If the problem extends beyond liquidity and really is an insufficiency of assets by any significant share, its going to be hard for a no-loss takeover to be facilitated.