The collapse and the regulatory aftermath

Has the dilution of regulatory norms initiated by the US regime contributed to the recent collapse of 3 regional banks in the US? Appears so:

The sudden collapse of 2 regional banks in the U.S., California-based Silicon Valley Bank and New York's Signature Bank, is defined as a major failure of the banking system in country since 2008, when Washington Mutual, which had assets of more than $300 billion at that time, crumbled and created havoc. The current failures are majorly attributed to heavy losses on the banks' bond portfolios and a massive run on the deposits. While experts do not believe these failures to affect the banking sector in a major manner in the coming days, U.S. regulators nevertheless have taken swift measures to strengthen market confidence and prevent more bank runs. Additional liquidity has been provided in exchange T eligible assets. The Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FIDC) and the Treasury Department have together committed to ensuring that all depositors in the 2 banks would regain access to their funds and losses if any suffered by the deposit insurance fund will be recovered through a special levy on other banks, and not levy of taxes.

In an unrelated development prior to the collapse of these institutions, Californian bank Silvergate came out with a public announcement about its failure and its intention to wind up. It said its dependence on the cryptocurrency industry is the major cause for the failure. In a public notice the bank also said it will wind down operations and voluntarily liquidate itself in an orderly manner and in accordance with applicable regulatory processes. Earlier, Silvergate shares tumbled nearly 44%.

The bank said it will want to return deposits to customers, but many observers feel this is unlikely in the immediate future.