> Most of the 96% of "investors" locked out of startup financing because of accreditation rules would be very poorly served by startup investing.

I basically agree, but will make the following observation anyway: the figure that matters isn't what fraction of that 96% would be very poorly served, but what fraction of the ones who would invest in startups if they could would be very poorly served.

Imagine a university that targets exceptionally smart students, and also is only prepared to educate the very rich. (Or people whose surname begins with the letter A. Or almost any other small group that isn't basically equivalent to "very clever people".)

Then it will be true that (1) most of the people "locked out" by its rich-people-only policy would be poorly served by studying there, but also that (2) removing that policy would be a public benefit. (Assuming there weren't other adverse effects, e.g. running out of money because they could no longer charge such high fees.)

Going back to startup investing, it's at least plausible that most of the 96% wouldn't choose to do it because of the high perceived risks, and that those who would will be those who (1) are more risk-tolerant because they have more money and/or (2) think they understand the market particularly well. Both of these are probably correlated with being not so poorly served by startup investing.

(They may well not be correlated enough with that to make it a good idea, which is why I basically agree with your point despite the quibbling. But the quibble seems like a generally important distinction whether or not it makes a difference in this particular case.)