[relaunched]

I have a hard time understanding who this helps. Clearly there are exceptions for family offices and the spousal exception is strangely broadened in a way that includes same sex, non married couples (and I believe that's a win) - though arguably is much broader. But, an exception for people that pass some relatively basic SEC certifications (who also don't meet some reasonable financial thresholds) or folks that are non-significant wage earners, that work for a VC and want to invest. It's really strange considering now, investment brokers / managers who don't make enough to participate under the old rules can participate AND convince their clients / the market to participate...that seems odd.

If there is a reasonable reason to create an income threshold, presumably to protect investors from risky investments who can't withstand the loss, then why create exceptions for people who don't meet the income / asset requirement?

If you believe that investment in startups should be regulated, to save us from ourselves, it's hard to imagine this helps the average potential investor.

[jonas21]

The point of the accredited investor regulation is to protect unsophisticated investors who don't understand the risk of investing in startups and other unregistered offerings.

These exceptions will let people without a high income or net worth qualify as accredited investors by proving that they have the financial knowledge to understand these risks. For example, anyone can take the Series 65 exam.

It sounds like this could be very helpful in allowing people who are not rich to invest in startups while still protecting people who have no idea what they're doing.