There is nothing to protect someone who is reckless or gullible: they can lose all their money on currently-legal schemes, as well.
If an investor provides false/incomplete documentation that their investment qualifies (as an acceptable proportion of their net worth or other 'government approved' investments), then that fraud should be the investor's problem when things go south, not the receiving company. Current 'accreditation' is not verified by the government, but rather asserted to the company/lawyers with enough credibility to convince them.
Is someone who inherits a million dollars more qualified to invest $10K-$990K into a risky tech venture than someone who's actually earned $10K-$990K in the same field as that venture? Because that's the logic a dumb-money wealth test suggests.
If an investor provides false/incomplete documentation that their investment qualifies (as an acceptable proportion of their net worth or other 'government approved' investments), then that fraud should be the investor's problem when things go south, not the receiving company. Current 'accreditation' is not verified by the government, but rather asserted to the company/lawyers with enough credibility to convince them.
Is someone who inherits a million dollars more qualified to invest $10K-$990K into a risky tech venture than someone who's actually earned $10K-$990K in the same field as that venture? Because that's the logic a dumb-money wealth test suggests.