I was being facetious. But also trying to make the point that in “real” banking failure on a day to day customer level is not an option and that fraud and the associated failures can only be tolerated on major macro flow capital scales such as with bond holders, shareholders, etc. that is why your bank is not too worried about fishing attacks but is more concerned in creating capital outflows to irreversible exchange mechanisms offered by Bitcoin and even more concerned by strange tokenization strategies of what is called “shitcoins”. For boring day to day “banking” to work the sudden appearance of macro scale economic flows on individual account holders balance sheets creates uncertainty in being able to provide what is traditionally understood as banking services. So yes, if there are possibilities for irreversible anonymous capital flows then they have to start worrying about fishing attacks. Otherwise if they are subjected to a fishing attack and someone drains your account electronically the partner destination institution can help reverse the transaction because if they won’t and are harboring criminals (on micro scale like what is in your account) they could lose their banking license and so are incentivized to return the money and reverse the phishing attack transaction. It’s why scammers make you buy gift cards.