[yieldcrv]

Nobody was arguing that they weren't different, we were just waiting for you to explain the distinction you introduced, after not explaining the thing others introduced and were asking about

Since the goal was to save deposits 100% and there was enough money for that goal, and every account got 1/1 treatment, and nobody got 1/10th treatment, nobody got 1.5/1 treatment, and this applied to everyone over and under $250k not just those 10 accounts in the article, I’m still not seeing how those 10 accounts accounts “were more equal than others” which was the supposition introduced in the “joke” earlier

I don’t think semantics really helps point out that OP just had a poor joke that wasnt funny or accurate, I’m open to counterpoints though.

[oriettaxx]

I think it was not a poor joke, cause I think the reference perfectly fit the contest, anyhow my 'take is as a joke' was an invitation to take it less seriously, although it is a LOT of money (not coming from tax, I know, but anyhow collected to protect the general public and not a few), so it should also be taken more then seriously, as you did.

[yieldcrv]

yeah, you're good, I can see a perspective where the high value and societal integration involved caused the extended full coverage at all, compared to what would happen to a smaller bank that could not find a buyer.

I mostly think people misunderstand what happened and that joke can easily perpetuate that.