‘Time to Revisit’ US Accredited Investor Laws

Armstrong Targets the ‘Accredited Investor’ Gate

In a post on X, Armstrong said it was “time to revisit the accredited investor laws in the US,” noting that the decades-old framework is a barrier that shields the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. The Coinbase co-founder argued that the current system effectively reserves early-stage returns for people who are already rich, adding:

“Companies are staying private longer, where only accredited investors (aka rich people!) can invest. Retail investors can only come in after IPO, when much of the upside has already been captured.”

Under current U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules, an individual generally qualifies as an accredited investor only with annual income above $200,000, or $300,000 jointly, or a net worth exceeding $1 million (excluding a primary residence). Those thresholds gate access to private placements, venture deals and many early token sales, precisely the stage where the steepest gains are made.

A Financial Literacy Test Instead of a Wealth Test

Armstrong proposed replacing the wealth-based standard with a merit-based one, suggesting a financial literacy test that, if passed, would qualify someone for accreditation based on competency rather than bank balance or income. Alternatively, he floated scrapping the rule entirely while keeping disclosure requirements and fraud enforcement in place to punish bad actors.

The idea is not without precedent, as in 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill endorsing an examination-based path to accredited status, letting investors qualify by demonstrating knowledge rather than wealth. Lawmakers and industry groups have argued for years that the income and net-worth tests are a crude proxy for sophistication that bars financially literate people of modest means while waving through wealthy novices.

The argument has gained urgency in light of marquee companies’ delaying their public listings, with SpaceX’s record initial public offering (IPO) most recently minting enormous gains for early private backers before retail buyers could even touch the stock (a dynamic Armstrong and others say is becoming the norm rather than the exception).

A Familiar Push From Coinbase

The accredited-investor critique fits a broader narrative for Armstrong, who has repeatedly pressed Washington for clearer and friendlier rules. In this regard, Bitcoin.com News has previously reported that Coinbase execs have met with U.S. lawmakers in the past to discuss a crypto regulatory proposal, while Armstrong himself has previously said the more regulation there is for crypto, the better it is for Coinbase (owing to the company’s compliance-heavy model).

He has also struck an optimistic tone on the policy outlook, telling followers the U.S. is closing in on long-awaited regulatory clarity. Loosening accreditation rules would directly benefit Coinbase, which has expanded into tokenized securities, derivatives and onchain products that could reach a far larger audience if the investor pool widens.

Critics, however, counter that the thresholds exist to shield inexperienced investors from illiquid, high-risk and sometimes fraudulent offerings. Private markets carry far less disclosure than public ones, and consumer advocates warn that opening the floodgates could expose retail buyers to losses they cannot absorb.

Armstrong’s view in all of this is one that tries to address that concern by pairing wider access with continued fraud enforcement, though whether that balance satisfies regulators remains to be seen.

On the other hand, supporters of reform argue the status quo is itself a risk, pushing retail investors toward only the most speculative public-market assets while the steadier compounding of early private growth stays off-limits. They contend a knowledge-based test would expand access without abandoning consumer protection.