Skimming that and other sources, I could not confirm the assertion that no net money was spent bailing out depositors. If that was the case, then the FDIC wouldn't need to replenish their insurance fund.
> The FDIC estimates that […] Of the estimated loss amounts, approximately 88 percent, or $18 billion, is attributable to the cost of covering uninsured deposits at SVB while approximately two-thirds, or $1.6 billion, is attributable to the cost of covering uninsured deposits at Signature Bank.
With the caveat that these were estimates and there was significant uncertainty.
That was wrong: it looks like the price was more like negative 16.5 billion [0] so that was the cost to the FDIC.
I agree with other commentators that even if the price was zero and the guarantees to FCB were never tested, the taxpayers still paid money in expectation - they took a bet without getting paid for the potential downside. I don't really agree with characterizations [1] of the deposit insurance fund as "not being from the taxpayers" - a fee on bank deposits is in other countries described as a tax, and even if not, the DIF is at least backstopped by the taxpayer.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/27/silicon-val...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/svb-banks-fdic-first-citizen-sili...