I’m not going to be using this site to guide my opinions of VCs, I don’t generally outsource that much of my opinion-making to 3rd parties. But it does broadly reflect my opinions, you could get a very rough “general direction” picture of how I think from reading it.

“It’s rational to join a bank run, VCs would have been negligent to their companies if they advised to stay”

I know! Believe it or not I have studied a fair bit of game theory, enough to go beyond “it was a prisoners dilemma” and analyze the SVB collapse as an iterated prisoners dilemma with variable information/reputation and a small number of rounds (in this case the amount of information/reputation broadcasting very quickly drove the whole population to “defect always” and the ecosystem rapidly collapsed).

I trust myself to be capable of assigning blame for the bank run correctly (broadly speaking: I. nobody started the run, everyone joined it; II. joining the run earlier is very slightly more blameful than joining the run later; III. being part of the run “loudly” is very significantly more blameful than being part of the run “quietly”).

That is maybe 20%, while the other 80% and thus the real albatross here is the demand to be made whole afterwards.

Roughly speaking the least blameful is “you’ll get 250k immediately, a substantial fraction soon, and almost all eventually; if this still kills your business let us know and we’ll try to arrange bridging finance”, while the most blameful is “the government must promise to make us whole on Monday morning or the contagion will spread; use taxpayer money if you have to, this is that important”.