[leetcrew]

> I believe his point was that money/wealth is not a good differentiator of sophistication, AND it puts an unnecessary bar to anybody investing in today's opportunities (to your point).

that doesn't mean it's an unreasonable bar. it's sort of like the opposite of "if you owe the bank a million dollars, it's your problem; if you owe the bank a billion dollars, it's their problem". if someone with a million dollars loses a large chunk of it to a bad investment, it's mostly just their problem. if someone with $10k loses a large chunk of it, it may become the (welfare) state's problem. if the state is going to guarantee that basic needs are met at some level, it's not unreasonable to prohibit people from doing risky things that are likely to lead to them drawing on the system. this is the essential tradeoff between freedom and security.

[morelisp]

It's not only this. An environment where the only investment policy is caveat emptor is also an environment that will encourage more scammy investment opportunities. It is also in the state/community interest to make sure investments represent real growth opportunities and not just lining some huckster's pockets. You don't want the entire market itself to end up a market for lemons.