But the SEC's failure to foresee the banks' crash doesn't mean they didn't regulate. The fact they swooped in and took over another bank after SVB proves they are doing (some of) their job as a regulator. The punishments that come later, and the protections of customer deposits to come, that's also what you do get with regulation.
I think it's pointless for them to want to regulate decentralised networks like Bitcoin -- they already know this. What they do want to regulate is crypto businesses -- which is anything but decentralised. The problem I have is them wanting to determine who can use crypto and how they must use it, but I actually think because the majority of users don't have enough knowledge or information, the mainstream consumer is probably better off having the protections of regulation.
For the rest of us who want to use Bitcoin as it should, little of this affects us anyway, other than to inconvenience us heh.
There are talks that some regulations that were rolled back from Dodd-Frank caused the SVB collapse but there isn't a single regulation that would have allowed for banks to invest money onto the market and prevented the bank run. The bank collapse is a byproduct of a fragile U.S. economy that has put all its eggs in one basket to stop inflation which is inflation rate hikes.
There's market risk in every investment so I don't see how it's feasible for regulators to regulate out inherent risk. To the extent the FDIC will do what they're obligated to do is the only hope I have for the government to step in. Uninsured creditors should not be bailed out.