Seriously, this is getting real old. If the overall level of economic knowledge of your average BTC investor is really that superficial, I'm not too impressed...
I'm going to quote myself, because I've written the following summary over and over again in the past month(s), and it still applies:
[...]
1) Slovenia =/= Cyprus. Seriously, it's a worthwhile discussion to go through the details, but for several reasons I don't see Slovenia at a real risk for a "bail in". To name a few: bigger country, higher risk of domino effect. less foreign account holders than cyprus to my knowledge. EU already made an example of Cyprus.
2) even in cyprus, there was no "all banks bail in", I hope people know that. In particular this means that Unicredit Slovenia, a subsidiary of the Italian Unicredit, is nowhere near the level of risk of the Slovenian *state banks*, that are the main cause of the problem the Slovenian banking landscape faces.
That said, if you want to be safe, convert to btc. If you want to be really safe, withdraw those coins. Personally, I don't think it's necessary though.
Especially point 2) is something that is completely ignored, every single time this discussion comes up. Think what you want about how the EU handled Cyprus (disclosure: I think they did the right thing, all things considered), but the bail-in did *not* affect all Cypriot banks. So very little indicates that Unicredit Slovenia would be affected by a (far from certain) bail-in in Slovenia.