I disagree. It would be one thing if we could say that a person's decision to get into an ultrarisky investment only affected themselves, but that's not true. W

I disagree. It would be one thing if we could say that a person's decision to get into an ultrarisky investment only affected themselves, but that's not true. When investors get scammed or a high risk venture simply fails, there's a blast radius. People getting ruined strains families, social groups, and organizations. Then the government has to step in in all sorts of ways to help clean up the mess. The most experienced firms in the world got sucked into FTX. That's going to happen from time to time, and they're built to absorb the losses with limited social fallout. Now, I do think that the rules as they are right now aren't great. They should be focused more on containing risk (we do this with systematically important financial institutions) and evaluating preparedness from a knowledge perspective. The other thing you could do is try to increase access to registered security status from the venture side, with frameworks for disclosure, reporting, and accountability that don't require hiring millions of dollars worth of professional banking, accounting, and legal services. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemically_important_financial_institution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemically_important_financi...