It wasn't "irrational VCs" starting a bank run that caused the SVB problems.
It was the very clear fact that the bank was insolvent, except under "we can pretend all their customers will leave their money at below-market interest rates for a decade" accounting.
Perhaps if SVB had less-informed customers, the bank failure would have happened at the speed of First Republic. But the writing was on the wall: SVB was certain to require some form of bail-out or acquisition.
They are only "insolvent" if they mark to market rather than holding the treasuries to maturity; which as I said above is true to pretty much every bank out there. This is inherent to banking, if there's a run then there is not enough liquidity.
In all my reading of SVB, I have never once seen an anaylsis that says that a bailout would be necessary. For that matter, neither have I seen an analysis claim that acquisition was necessary. An acquisition would have been far preferable, and causing a bank run was far more irrational than allowing an acquisition to happen.
This is inherent to fractional reserve banking - not all banking. Demand deposits should not be lent out, if banks want to make loans then the capital should come from longer term assets not demand deposits. This isn't hard, it's just far less profitable.
It was the very clear fact that the bank was insolvent, except under "we can pretend all their customers will leave their money at below-market interest rates for a decade" accounting.
Perhaps if SVB had less-informed customers, the bank failure would have happened at the speed of First Republic. But the writing was on the wall: SVB was certain to require some form of bail-out or acquisition.