yes, obvious
consider which business wouldn't be at risk of closing down when half of their customers run away _at nearly the same time_.
similar consider which liquidity focused/dominated business would be at risk of they randomly lose half their liquidity
the only reason why it's "only" nearly 180 banks is because many banks are as much or more focused on "other" money business then things like deposits (e.g. land)
(I know of course that’s not what banks are primarily do today - which is probably one of the root causes of all these problems)
Almost all businesses that fail do not take their customers life savings with them when they fail. That same life savings that’s being used to profit off interest bearing loans and risky investments at a disproportionate benefit to the bank.
Even your savings in your home without a bank have a possibility of loss due to things like theft or pests or natural disaster. Or more commonly, inflation.
Needless to say banking services became unusable. The best example is an 8 year old child had their birthday account become a deficit for not maintaining a minimum balance. Plenty of tears were shed as the mother tried to explain to child the bank didn't take all your money...
Except, the way banking is set up in the US, there exists a lender of last resort (the Federal Reserve) that can step in to replace that liquidity, if the bank is really solvent -- and even then, that's assuming other banks won't lend to it. So yes, I except 50% of funds being withdrawn to be survivable if the banks is otherwise solvent.