It is extremely unclear what, if anything, you are arguing for or against, other than that banks have recently done some bad things.
It seems like you might be against regulating stablecoins as banks, but you also appear to be arguing for harsher punishments for banks that misbehave? Or something?
It's interesting that people think crypto markets have little-to-no fraud or misbehavior when they AREN'T regulated, but banks (and all things financial) are regulated exactly to prevent this.
It's almost like these people must think that regulating banks is what causes the misbehavior, not the other way around.
But that argument (not yours, I know) is really weak: If we have problems with banks behaving in ways that are harmful to others in society, and problems with emergent phenomena that banks don't care to avoid because most of the losses from any collapses won't be on their balance sheets... why would we exactly want to have a bank-equivalent organization that isn't under at least as stringent regulations as the banks?
If the argument were that more regulation is needed, then surely up and coming actors with less to lose are even more important to catch with that regulation?
Because without proper regulation of establishment players, the alternative, which is competition from upstarts, is the only way to keep them in check, so stunting them only serves the establishment.
It seems like you might be against regulating stablecoins as banks, but you also appear to be arguing for harsher punishments for banks that misbehave? Or something?