The implication is not that the FDIC is simpler than bitcoin. The implication is that there's little in the way of security with bitcoin. Which is as per the design. You lose your wallet/key, you lose your money. There's no way to insure against that loss (at least not 100%), otherwise half of all circulating BTC would be in an insurer's accounts.
Sure there is. Someone can sell insurance, and you can choose to pay for it.
> (at least not 100%)
Perhaps not, but I wouldn't call the FDIC's insurance "100%" either. I doubt it would take very many simultaneous bank runs for problems to arise, even with the FDIC.
> otherwise half of all circulating BTC would be in an insurer's accounts
I'm not sure why half of all BTC would need to be in insurers' accounts, and I'm not sure why that would be an inherent problem even if it were the case.
