First, that would be accused murderer, as they haven't been proven guilty yet. You know, like the situation Rittenhouse was in. And second, it should be proportional to ability to pay. So a poor person and a rich person should have the same difficulty in affording bail for an arrest, while the specific crime could make it either prohibitive to afford or very easy.
But in original concept bail was not supposed to have anything to do with such definition of "fairness". Bail is, in concept, supposed to be reflective of the total balance of risk of the person becoming a fugitive, and the cost of finding and arresting them again in case they do.
By that logic, a low level cartel enforcer illegal immigrant, even if very poor, arrested for a lesser felony assault crimes, should have astronomically high bail, because there is a good chance he will sod off to another country and getting him to show up in court will be near impossible.
On the other hand, a millionaire CEO arrested for lesser felony assault probably will show up in court and pay all fees, damages etc, because there isn't much of a danger he will try to disappear over it, because he has a family, business and so on, he would lose more becoming a fugitive than showing up in court, so he shouldn't have to pay much bail, as the risk is very low.
Your idea of pricing screws formally rich people for no good reason, and greatly favors formally poor people with patrons/family/friends/supporters richer than themselves.