When you purchase stock in a bank, there is a reasonable expectation that your investment could lose value.
When you deposit money with a bank (in the United States in 2023), you basically never consider the possibility that you might not get it all back.
You can certainly argue that the expectation isn't fair, but I'm pretty confident it's nearly universal.
Is it any different over there, albeit for the rather higher limit, in America?
But there's also a big distinction between the working capital required for a business and the size of e.g. a personal savings account, which is kind of getting lost here.
If your payroll is $1M every month then it may not really be practical to split deposits across many accounts.
Why not? That's only four accounts' worth of full protection.
This is an assumption which desperately needs to change, in my opinion, otherwise the risk of bank runs will be a think ad infinitum.
1. if you know your deposits are at risk then you actively work to derisk them, for example placing most of your cash in T-Bills.
2. if you know your deposits are safe then you just keep them in the bank.
The middle seems less stable.