Caitlyn Long specific noted that valuing the assets at *par* is the bailout.
Discussion
It's weird to call it a bailout, when the regulators literally walked through the front doors and put these institutions into receivership. Acting like it's outrageous that the government would protect depositors, when anybody who isn't an anarcho-capitalist or extreme libertarian is, has obviously been sleeping through the whole part where, yes, we have regulatory bodies with the legal mandate and authority, authorized by Congress, to protect depositors in events exactly like this.
So why the difference between uninsured and insured deposits?
Origin of that policy relates to the size of uninsured deposits enabling different risk taking than that of insured deposits
I think I'm done for the day arguing with anarcho-capitalists and extreme libertarians who are primarily concerned fitting these events into a political narrative, rather than adjudicating them on the merits.
I for one am genuinely just not very smart and am trying to figure out what's happening. I don't know where to look and I largely depend on folks who have historically checked out with integrity and proficiency in this area. I think you might be misinterpreting folks like myself.
Maybe not you. But a lot of people are trying to turn this is to a political cudgel, and many in so doing, are just making shit up without any regards to the facts.
I mean the bitcoin sphere does seem full of libertarians and anarcho-capitalists... It's kind of what you should expect.
#[10]
Here is a list of qualifying collateral.
Are any of these assets trading below par?