[spywaregorilla]

> The vast majority of modern day economic activity takes place electronically, and as such requires partnering with a number of different financial organizations to make that happen.

Ideally though that number isn't 1. All they're saying is they should have multiple banks.

[qqqwerty]

How many FDIC insured bank accounts would the cat sweater business need to protect them from Etsy withholding their money? I am pretty sure more bank accounts isn't really going to help with that.

[spywaregorilla]

Obviously the problem is not that the cat sweater business needed more bank accounts. It's that Etsy needed more bank accounts. Etsy is the one that cannot get its own money.

The cat sweater business probably wasn't banking with SVB to begin with.

[not_a_shill]

And now the cat sweater people know they have to diversify where they sell their product. I've seen people sell the same stuff on multiple storefronts. (easy, Amazon, ebay) This wasn't even the #1 reason to do that anyways, so they should have already been doing so.

Sucks for them, but it's a life lesson in starting a business.

[bagels]

Right, the implication is that they shouldn't have started their business at all because there was a risk that Etsy would use a bank that might fail.

[ashwagary]

>the implication is that they shouldn't have started their business at all

Instead of passing the buck, the takeaway is that Etsy could be punished for inappropriately managing customer funds held on behalf of sellers. I expect US law has avenues for sellers to seek adequate compensation for damages Etsy has caused, especially if the TOS didnt cover this outcome.