* The phrase "logical incentive" did not clearly communicate what you wanted to a novice reader. Perhaps it could be worded more clearly, in the Nash Equilibrium section. 

 * The cited source makes the point about bank runs happening even when the story is false. This point is worth mentioning separately, because it's counterintuitive to many people. Bank runs happening when the story is true could be mentioned separately, I suppose, but the way it was worded lost most of the force of explaining the counterintutive story. 

 * I still think this article should not contain handwaving references to "mathematics". Stuff like that just looks to me like we're trying to tell the reader "this stuff is too hard for your poor little brain to understand; you'll just have to trust us". 

 * "If you read the paper". I assume you're talking about McAndrews & Roberds 1999 here? If so, I don't see why we need to emphasize that paper so much. That paper is not about bank runs. It's already overemphasized in this article, and should not be emphasized more. This article should not be a general discussion about banking, honest trade, the virtues of the banking system, etc., etc. It should be about bank runs, with only brief mentions of the other stuff (though those brief mentions are important; see below). 

 * Diamond 2007 says "Bank runs disrupt production because they force banks to call in loans early. This forces the borrowers to disrupt their production." This supports the claim in the text that calling in loans is something can banks do in response to bank runs or the threat of bank runs, and that this in turn disrupts the wider economy. 

 * Diamond 2007 says "the sudden withdrawals can force the bank to liquidate many of its assets at a loss and to fail." This supports "forcing the bank to liquidate its assets at a loss, and eventually to fail"; it does not support "liquidated far less quickly". We have to stick with claims that supported by the cited sources. 

 * The article is not claiming that the bank would liquidate "all its assets", only some of them. It is following what Diamond 2007 says on this subject. I suppose we should change "liquidate its assets" to "liquidate many of its assets"; I've done that. 

 * How about if we change it to ""the bank itself may run short of liquidity"? 

 * I agree that we don't want to go into detail about money creation and so forth, but it's still useful to briefly mention that the economy is helped by having banks that can spread the risk of making loans. This is related to the notion of unpredictability, as the idea of sharing risk is a key notion of the D&D; model. 

 * I disagree that Bank run should avoid all mention of unpredictability. The ordinary reader won't understand the relationship between unpredictability and liquidity. Unpredictability, and the desire to avoid it, is an important reason why bank runs occur. The Diamond paper focuses on this, and is right to do so; we shouldn't second-guess the source.