Sheldon

I think it’s time to revisit the accredited investor laws in the US. 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. These rules were created with the best of intentions, to protect regular people from scams - a noble idea. Unfortunately, in practice they've often made it illegal to get richer, unless you're already rich. A regressive tax! We have to judge policies based on their outcomes, not on their intentions. These are two possible routes I see: 1) Replace the rule with something merit-based, like a financial literacy test. Pass it and you're accredited. Having a qualification based on competency rather than your bank balance or income seems far more fair. 2) Remove the rule entirely. Let consenting adults assess their own risk. Disclosure requirements stay and fraud enforcement stays to punish bad actors.

An interview question I keep coming back to for senior roles: "If there were an Olympics for weirdly specific skills, what would you medal in?" Many candidates freeze and pivot to resume highlights. But everyone who made it into the room already has cool shit on their resume. That's not the interesting part. What I'm actually trying to understand is whether they know their unfair advantages with real precision. And whether they can use them when there's no script and no template.