How many of those are capable of creating systemic financial risk, though?
People in the '20s were literally mortgaging their house and car to buy stocks on margin en masse because they took in advertising and word of mouth that told them it was a good idea. You could theoretically also do that at a casino, but practically speaking that's not a big problem.
Look at the crypto hype-train that got latched onto by people who didn't do their homework on crypto, or the craziness of WSB on reddit. We are still capable of letting that happen today.
People in the 90s were doing the same to buy beanie babies. People will do dumb things with their money. That being said, I don't think things like pattern day trading bans have ever been beneficial to the retail investor. It just keeps poorfolk from engaging in strategies used by wealthier people regularly.
People will do dumb things with their money, but the point of the regulation is to increase frictions on lots of people doing dumb things with their money at the same time. "Beneficial to the retail investor" has nothing to do with it.
If one person can't pay their home loan for the month that's the borrower's problem. If millions of people can't pay their home loan for the month that's the bank's problem, and generally speaking that's enough to start bank runs.
My guess is that there is some amount of overlap between the crypto/WSB crowd and, say, the people who kickstarted (read: were structurally prohibited from investing in) Oculus.
Which is why there shouldn't be any prohibition exclusively in the securities market. There are even higher wealth tests in some aspects of the commodities market.
These things just haven't been challenged in the courts because those wealthy enough don't know or consider this is an issue, and people less wealthy aren't even exposed to these kinds of opportunities and probably also can't afford the court challenge.
I think there is room for a challenge and invalidation of the entire concept because the wealth test actually used to be different kinds of tests as recently as the 70s. Those were no good because it led to arbitrary discrimination by the brokers and companies. And now we are back to that because FINRA licenses are more standardized.
Can likely invalidate the entire concept with more recent case law such as spending is speech via 1st amendment, 5th amendment and 14th amendment equal application of laws in comparison to the wealth/access dichotomy as well as ability to speculate and gamble in other markets.
People in the '20s were literally mortgaging their house and car to buy stocks on margin en masse because they took in advertising and word of mouth that told them it was a good idea. You could theoretically also do that at a casino, but practically speaking that's not a big problem.
Look at the crypto hype-train that got latched onto by people who didn't do their homework on crypto, or the craziness of WSB on reddit. We are still capable of letting that happen today.