Officials at the Federal Reserve released a new requirement for banks to hold more capital this week. From the headlines and coverage, you’d think the regulators punished the beleaguered financial industry with serious reform. The banks “just can’t catch a break” according to Marketwatch. “Steep Leverage Ratio Requirements Will Force Banks To Rethink Their Capital Plans” warned Fortune.

Though a step in the right direction, we should be careful about taking a victory lap or declaring Mission Accomplished when it comes to these capital rules. The new rule, while important, isn’t where it needs to be in order to work properly. And there are still two major battles coming up this year when it comes to capital requirements, which is the amount of money regulators require a bank to hold. These battles will prove equally consequential, and ultimately determine whether or not the problem of Too Big To Fail is fixed.

The rules in question are designed to get banks to fund themselves with safer equity instead of risky debt. Capital requirements are an excellent regulatory tool because they strengthen a whole set of public policy objectives. As is commonly discussed, they make firms less likely to fail. But they also mean an easier landing when failure happens, giving regulators working capital to help keep a failing firm from causing a market wide panic.

And they can be finely targeted to increase the regulatory scrutiny on larger, more complex firms. Conservatives argue that Dodd-Frank is onerous for small banks while letting the larger firms off the hook. The American Enterprise Institute’s James Pethokoukis describes Dodd-Frank as “the mother of cronyist laws” for this reason. But the new capital requirements are tougher for larger firms, and the Fed’s new rule continues this trend. It increased the leverage requirements for banks with assets over $700 billion to 5 percent, while their FDIC-insured subsidiaries have to hold 6 percent. This is in comparison to normal 3 percent rule.

So what’s the concern? The first is that, while it is better, this number isn’t high enough. The major, serious (but reasonable) ask on capital has been 8 percent. This is the number that Pew’s Systemic Risk Council, with prominent members like Sheila Bair, Paul Volcker, Paul O'Neill, and Brooksley Born, has said would be ideal. Others have argued that even higher requirements, on the order of 20-25 percent, would be more appropriate.