There are multiple threads trying to go into detail about the nuance of what happened, so I'll spare from rehashing it here. But it certainly was not promising FDIC coverage on all deposited funds.
What scenario can you imagine where this does not hold true?
SVB is almost the perfect scenario in which to haircut depositors, and yet here we are.
You can see dividend payouts from failed banks here: https://closedbanks.fdic.gov/dividends/
There are many examples of cases in which depositors take a 4-10% haircut, and receive it months or years after the failure (meaning the haircut is quite a bit larger when factoring for time).
Was always wondering if they got more, but nope.
(They did get lucky in that fdic limit was $100k and I think they retroactively upped it to $250k on this failure, but that probably hurt rather than helped anyone with over $500k or so).
Many other examples of >10% losses, would be cool if someone did an analysis.
Bank stocks will crash more, and consumers will ultimately feel the pinch as banks use the only tools then available to create margins: dramatically increased fees and cost of borrowing.
But to say that the FDIC came out and announced 100% protection of all deposits is no more true today than it was when banks were bailed out in the '08 crisis, and there have been many, many examples of depositors losing money since those bailouts happened.
You can debate the nuances all you want, I’m sticking with the simple proof and reality. FDIC member banks offer 100% depositor protection now.
Edit: this is not debating nuances. Insurance coverage is not what we feel and think it is. It's what is specifically documented and funded. In this case, the FDIC is neither documenting nor funding 100% coverage for all deposits in the nation. They may decide to do so, but they certainly have not at this time.