[lambic2]

The fact that SVB just went under disproved your point. Without a moat a company is relegated to ways of making money that at some point in time become unsustainable (i.e. when interest rates change) and then go under. As opposed to companies with strong moats that defend their free cash flow (i.e. Apple).

[lazyasciiart]

It doesn't disprove it at all, because I'm certainly not arguing that not having a moat is a strength. It almost sounds like you are arguing that having a moat makes a company indestructible.