> You can argue that it should work like that, but we intentionally decided to make SEC regulation the rule, and only grant exceptions for investors who have demonstrated they can handle the risk.

We had no say in this.

The SEC unilaterally created modern day (1970s onward) accredited investor rules, although I'm sure they had their routine public comment period as if that made a difference.

The 1930s Congress and public had no idea that exemption from their protection would take shape this way.

Former accredited investor-like rules relied on financial literacy tests. These were predictable discriminatory and even the most compliant financial firms found them to be too vague. The SEC switched to the money tests to solve the lack of clarity and discrimination problems, LOL OOPS.

Sorry, the idea of SEC regulation being the rule, with only limited exceptions, was what I meant by the 'intentionally decided' bit.

The exact mechanism for how an exemption is decided is certainly up for debate. I was simply saying the mandatory part was decided on by 'us'.

Founders, employees, institutional and retail investors got together and voted for the SEC?

Are you sure about that?

America is a republic. Founders, employees, institutional, and retail investors got together, voted for Congressional representatives who then wrote the law creating the SEC and investment rules decades ago. In the decades since, Founders, employees, institutional, and retail investors have continued to elect Congressional representatives who have strengthened and broadened those rules.

Really. So if you made a public vote about removing the accredited investment requirements and 51% of the people voted against it, it would blow your mind entirely?