Bail-ins is what should have happened with Silicon Valley and Signature. But that's not what actually happened. Instead, as has been widely reported, ALL depositors will be made whole.
So, while I fully understand and accept the fact that on paper Bail-ins are a genuine concern, in practice it's not happening. Instead, new bail-out frameworks are being created so that no depositors lose out.
That said, it begs the question what's the point of having FDIC insurance limits (i.e. $250k) if the moment a bank fails everyone scrambles to circumnavigate the rules and bail out uninsured depositors anyway? Farcical.
Furthermore, the FDIC couldn't protect all insured depositors if multiple banks failed in quick succession. They simply couldn't cover it all. In short, it's all a confidence trick. Just like depositing your money at a bank and fiat currency in general. It's all about confidence. And the instant confidence is lost, it's game over. It will be bank runs galore. At that point, the Gov / Fed will have two choices: 1) Let the banks collapse and watch as the financial system collapses or 2) Backstop every deposit in full. The latter would mean printing to infinity and beyond and would, therefore, result in a hyperinflationary collapse.