To be clear, what you're describing when you say "invested large sums of money into SVB" is the act of keeping your money in a bank.
If you think that we should treat the act of keeping money in banks as a risky choice, then fine, but there will be fairly substantial implications to that.
Take a look at my other comment in this thread. These weren't mom and pop investors, these were institutional investors that should have known better than to invest in a bank with such a portfolio mismatch. If they didn't they should have hired financial advisors and lawyers to investigate the bank. I have zero sympathy with someone with $100 million dollars who loses it because they weren't willing to hire a financial advisor to look into what they're putting their money into. That's saving a penny losing $100 million.
“invest in a bank” it’s not an investment in any normal sense. These people were not equity holders of SVB. They weren’t getting any return in exchange for risk.
I would refer to my other comment. Investing in a bank always carries the risk of a bank collapse, a threat that people that are under the FDIC limit implicitly are insured against. Large stakeholders that didn't pay an asset management firm to diversify their holdings or expect their holdings to be diversified at SVB were not acting with the competence necessary for that level of investment. A bank doubling their assets over a two year time period is a clear indication that something was wrong.
If you think that we should treat the act of keeping money in banks as a risky choice, then fine, but there will be fairly substantial implications to that.