In a perfect world with a fair market, yes they should consider entering and competing given they could probably do better. This isn't either.

One doesn't simply walk into mordor.

To enter this market, it requires that you first receive a national bank charter.

Post 2008 crisis, the laws have changed to eliminate competition from any new champion. There were many new requirements that can never be met over the long haul, and act as a ticking timebomb until it fails (through no fault of the person/group trying to start a bank.

At last read, the one that stuck out to me was it required a board of directors who could not receive payment or incentive related to the position, and where they would be personally liable for the majority of decision of the board.

No financial incentive, all the liability, and the decision is unmanageable in other people's hands. No one with a right mind will do that.

There's also the reasonability tests for success that need to be granted by the state or OCC as well. I hear these change all the time, and with the level of deficit spending these days and other fed shennanigan's its hard to find a reasonable person that will say any new contender will have a chance against a long-term state/fed fund/granted monopoly.