🏛️ Regulators backstop all uninsured deposits within days
The besties' unanimous call and demand going into the weekend of 2023-03-11: the Fed/Treasury/FDIC either hand SVB to a large balance sheet Bear-Stearns/WaMu style, or stand up a TARP-style facility guaranteeing 100% of deposits system-wide — wiping SVB's equity holders and management but making every depositor whole. Jason's mechanism claim is that merely announcing a big enough facility ($500B) stops the run without the money ever being drawn. Framed explicitly as a this-weekend / by-Monday event; the payoff is that a 2008-style systemic cascade is averted.
⚖ Why this verdict
fully deterministic — evaluate.py replays this from daily closes; nothing below is editable or hand-set
- Window: 2023-03-11 → 2023-04-11 — first mention + 1-month horizon, then the window locks.
- The call: ▲ LONG SPY (primary play). SPY rose 6.7% over the window → direction-adjusted R = +6.7% (the call made money).
- Benchmark: holding SPY over the same window returned +6.7% → α = +6.7 − (+6.7) = +0.0% — what this call made or lost against just owning the index. This is the number the verdict uses. (SPY is itself the primary here — scored on R alone.)
- Rule fired:
· HIT — R ≥ +10% AND α ≥ +5▶ PARTIAL — R ≥ +5% OR α ≥ 0· MISS — everything else
- Credit: supporters of a PARTIAL earn 0.5 each, opposers the inverse — this feeds the scoreboard weights. supported: Chamath, Jason, Sacks | benchmark-primary: scored on R alone | proxy-sensitive: KRE→MISS (-2.5%); XLF→MISS (+2.8%)
Conviction timeline
bands: green ≥ 65 · watch ≥ 45 · ember ≥ 15
Plays vs SPY · % since first mention (2023-03-11)
Plays
| expression | symbol | kind | relevance | rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▲ LONG | SPY | etf | PRIMARY | the claim's payoff is that a 2008-style systemic cascade gets averted, which is a broad-market call; the narrower regional-bank leg is scored separately and bearishly under svb-regional-bank-deposit-flight-2023 |
| ▲ LONG | KRE | etf | adjacent | the regional banks the backstop was meant to save — a proxy, and one that kept falling after the backstop arrived, so it should not be read as confirming this idea |
| ▲ LONG | XLF | etf | adjacent | broad financials — the sector the backstop is aimed at |
Mention log
“If a federal agency comes in, if the Fed comes in and says, you know what, we are going to backstop all of these banks and we are going to put $500 billion behind it and we're going to guarantee that all these deposits are going to be made whole.”
Who built this conviction
each voice's total force on the score — supports and opposes from every mention, weighted exactly as the replay applied them · share = % of all mention-driven movement
⏳ decay drained -14.0 over the idea's life — that's time passing, attributed to no one
Score events
| episode | kind | Δ | after | note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E119 2023-03-11 | init | +42.0 | 42.0 | E119 born by Jason (explicit_prediction x3) |
| E119 2023-03-11 | reinforce | +15.1 | 57.1 | E119 Sacks support x3 (new voice) [w=0.97] |
| E119 2023-03-11 | reinforce | +9.8 | 67.0 | E119 Chamath support x2 (new voice) [w=1.02] |
| E120 2023-03-17 | reinforce | +4.8 | 71.8 | E120 Sacks support x2 [w=0.97] |
| E121 2023-03-24 | decay | -5.0 | 66.7 | E121 silent |
| E122 2023-03-31 | decay | -4.7 | 62.1 | E122 silent |
| E123 2023-04-07 | decay | -4.3 | 57.7 | E123 silent |