Why is security an infrastructure problem?
Join @tnachen and me as we discuss the intersection of security & infra with @mjmalone of @smallsteplabs!
We cover everything from secure enclaves to how to fund verifiable computing!
https://t.co/oRGlKwMWxU
The world needs standards based and interopable Certificate Lifecycle Management. The world Needs ACME. #encryption#tls#standardds#opensource https://t.co/hvtTap3Prh
If you live in SF and you’ve noticed outdoor seating / parklets disappearing from restaurants, it’s intentional city policy. Make sure you let @LondonBreed know how you feel.
@BillBrasky69r@JohnFSilver@paulkrugman Ok, so let’s make bad investments illegal?
They had a $16b MTM loss in HTM assets… an unrealized 8% loss on $200b. They were just barely insolvent, which was being addressed.
I’ll repeat: 25% of deposits.
@gammaflip@paulkrugman SVB’s investments are irrelevant. Next time it’ll be something else. Fact is, SVB was fine. Their losses were 8% of assets and they had financing. Without the bank run they’d still be here. The fact that a bad zoom call can kill a bank is a systemic problem. That’s what I meant.
@gammaflip@paulkrugman 25% of deposits were withdrawn in a few hours. That number would have been higher if FDIC didn’t shut them down. Could other banks actually survive that?
Seems like a systemic failure & big risk for any bank with a large percentage of uninsured deposits.
@aaomidi@paulkrugman They weren’t in imminent danger of failing though. We can hindsight some bad investments, but that seems kind of irrelevant.
25% of deposits withdrawn in a few hours. No bank survives that.
@mitsuhiko@zeeg If FDIC covered my company’s deposits I wouldn’t have withdrawn.
FDIC guarantees continuous liquidity & eliminates risk. And, in a scenario like this, FDIC could still liquidate and make itself whole. If there’s always a buyer, FDIC insurance is nearly free. Why not have it?
@tshddx@zeeg Yes but in this case it was factual & public info. Saying “yo, that conference call SVB did was so bad I think people might panic and it could cause a run” seems like it isn’t & shouldn’t be illegal. Feels wrong, hard to enforce, and there are better ways to prevent a run.
@zeeg It’s weird how good policy is never popular. Apparently FDIC insurance was super controversial when it was first introduced for these same reasons. People be people, and politics be politics.
@zeeg And “SVB looks fine, but comms are bad so there might be a bank run” was 1) factual, 2) public information, and 3) not particularly catastrophist.
Like, that’s just how bank runs happen and why FDIC insurance exists, right?
Maybe there are more egregious facts I’m not privy to.
@zeeg Bank runs are a known market failure mode. Seems unfair to expect ppl not to act in their best interest. Messages I saw were: SVB looks fine, but comms are so bad there might be a bank run. Real question: why is FDIC limit only $250k? Removing the limit would have prevented this.
@nmasc_@ArlanWasHere Saying “don’t panic” and “if everyone is telling each other that SVB is in trouble, that will be a challenge” when everyone was already panicking and saying SVB is in trouble was not a great message. Would have been better to have said nothing.