I think what's going to happen is not much of anything. I think the rules are going to stay exactly where they are.View on YouTube
As of November 30, 2025, there have been no new SEC final rules or federal statutes materially changing the core U.S. “accredited investor” definition since the SEC’s 2020 amendments; the Commission’s own rulemaking page still points to the 2020 adopting release as the operative definition and shows no later accredited‑investor final rule. (sec.gov)
In Congress, major proposals to broaden access—such as the Equal Opportunity for All Investors Act of 2025 (H.R. 3339) and the Accredited Investor Definition Review Act (H.R. 3348)—have advanced (H.R. 3339 has passed the House and been referred to the Senate; H.R. 3348 has been reported out of committee but not voted on), yet neither has become law, so they have not actually changed who qualifies as accredited. (congress.gov)
The most concrete post‑podcast development is SEC staff guidance ADI 2025‑16, which stops staff from insisting that certain registered closed‑end funds of private funds (CE‑FOPFs) be sold only to accredited investors with a $25,000 minimum and no more than 15% in private funds; this effectively allows more retail investors to access private funds via registered vehicles. However, the ADI itself stresses that it is staff guidance, not a Commission rule or regulation, and does not alter applicable law. (sec.gov)
So far, the formal accredited‑investor framework and most related securities rules remain largely as they were, with only incremental loosening via staff practice and no enacted statutory or rule‑level overhaul. At the same time, the prediction was explicitly about what would happen “over the coming years,” and we are less than a year past the March 1, 2025 podcast date; substantial legislative or regulatory changes could still occur. Given this multi‑year horizon and the absence of decisive evidence either of sweeping reform or of its long‑term absence, the prediction’s ultimate accuracy cannot yet be determined, hence the “inconclusive” rating.