No, because the FDIC would collect higher fees commensurate with the increase in insured deposits. It would reduce profits for banks like SVB which have a large number of uninsured deposits and were able to take advantage of a "fed put".
It's overwrought takes like this that fail to see the real issues at play. Many of those projects were all good faith efforts and I haven't seen a shred of evidence that a16z was mass dumping tokens (most articles confuse a16z's first crypto fund, which did well, with the funds that were deployed in 2020/2021).
With all that said, a16z (and other top VC firms) are at or near the top in the list responsible for inflating the crypto bubble.
1. They weren't aligned with their LPs. The economics fundamentally changed for them as their funds 10x'd in size and they started bringing in $100M+ in management fees. They should have been asking themselves if they could responsibly invest anywhere near this amount in a crypto market with very few real users, but they decided to cash the checks instead.
2. They used social media to promote these tokens to retail and lobbied to reduce barriers for more retail investment. They were more than happy to sign off on plans for their portfolio companies to sell what were basically securities in seed companies to retail investors at orders of magnitude inflated prices. Then, they used their own Twitter accounts and podcast appearances to play up a potemkin digital revolution and raise their next fund, all while retail investors took a bath.
3. Due diligence was universally awful. They might have avoided most of the worst frauds, but plenty of investments were in unsustainable mechanisms where the collapse could have easily have been predicted.
From another Silicon Valley veteran: this was a horizontal team that lost its exec sponsor and so didn't have a clear way to make impact. This kind of thing happens all the time at companies and panicking is uncalled for.
This theoretically should be possible with MVCC, right? It's not an area I've explored and I could immediately see some issues with resource clean-up, but I could imagine it being possible with most modern DBs.
IAP is a platform-enforced monopoly that allows Apple and Google to extract a flat 30% from every digital transaction that happens in an app. It's one of the clearest examples of the deadweight loss from monopolies, as businesses that would otherwise exist but have higher marginal costs can't offer products that consumers would otherwise benefit from.
The latest numbers I could find place Google's search market share in China at 19.8%[0]. Sadly, I think 19.8% of China's internet users is much, much larger than the number of people who decide search providers based on the ethical record of the company.
The point being that he’s applying a bunch higher bar than someone with his interests and net worth would otherwise apply.