The SVB failure is directly related to the bank management making the obvious mistake of backing short-term money (deposits that can be withdrawn) with long-term assets (long duration Treasuries). This has caused plenty of banks to fail in the past and being aware of this risk should be Banking 101 level obvious. For a more local variety of this issue, see the S&L crisis from the 1980's or so. At least the S&L's had the excuse that they were basically forced into investing in long-term mortgages, while in SVB's case, being that they invested in marketable securities which they chose, was an unforced error.
And it should also be completely obvious that bank deposits in excess of FDIC coverage were a credit risk from the bank. It is kind of astonishing really that somebody who claims to be financially sophisticated (Ackerman) would ever think to utter that. This should have been 100% totally obvious to the management of every single one of the companies who had large deposits with SVB.
I do agree that there will be rippling effects that go beyond SVB's customers, which will have unknown consequences, but for now those who are caught by this made their own unforced mistake. They will probably eventually get almost all of their money out, but for now I guess their management has finally learned that credit risk is a thing.
Edit: I am mixing threads in my head and was half responding to this: