Traditionally, the line between who got to invest in startups and who was denied was simply a matter of how much money you had. There was no consideration of intelligence, education, or understanding of the principles involved. The rich got to play, everybody else had to watch.

While this may have been appropriate in the pre-internet days when it was hard to find information about the people and principles involved with a venture, in today's world those rules do little more than reinforce wealth inequality by providing options to the wealthy that are unavailable to the rest. 

Why is it that everyone has the chance to spend money on beer, cigarettes, or notoriously bad investments like slot machines and lottery tickets, but only the wealthy have the chance to invest in entrepreneurs trying to change the world. As long as you understand the risks, why shouldn't you have the chance to swing for the fences?

The JOBS Act was a huge step forward, and it enabled us to take our swing with Legion M. But it looks like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is considering changing the definition of accredited investor as well. We think it's about time!

http://www.thediwire.com/news/acting-sec-chair-advocating-for-looser-accredited-investor-definition

Comment