isn't this almost like a cartel move
Let's be real, banking is a public-private partnership. While it IS significant that the banks themselves are doing this, and not the Fed/FDIC, it would also seem quite possible (likely?) to be some nudging from the Fed/Treasury. Some form of "hey, we did our part (the new emergency backstop), you guys need to show you're worth this effort".
While the top-tier of banking is obviously in competition with each other, they're also bound together by their shared interest in the status quo, and then doubling bound together by the Fed/USG also being very interested in the status quo. So it's cartel-like, but it would be a mistake to only include the banks as members of the cartel.
Propping a competitor up in this nature is fairly hard to argue as "restraint of trade".
Banks directly acting to help their competition? Why? Isn't that how competition is supposed to work?
What we're seeing is yet another version of capital and capitalism in decline, and rich financiers are still claiming the empire is wearing a wonderful robe. News flash! he's wearing nothing at all.
That's like saying we can't implement renewable energy until the grid goes dark, and the best way to get reform is to go round blowing up some power stations. People are depending on this infrastructure to work! Advocating for bank failures without regard to the consequences to the users is the sort of accelerationism that you normally only hear from revolutionary Communists.
What is the acceptable level of collateral damage from bank failures to you?