Insider Brief
- OpenAI’s proposed AI industrial policy may want to include easing restrictions on non-accredited investors from participating in startup investing.
- The editorial contends that this a key mechanism for broad wealth distribution would allow wider access to early-stage investment — through regulated frameworks like capped contributions and diversified “Generational Wealth Accounts” — and would enable individuals to build long-term wealth alongside AI-driven growth.
- The piece positions expanded investment access as complementary to proposals such as public wealth funds and worker-focused policies, warning that without ownership opportunities, AI-era wealth will remain concentrated among existing capital holders.
- Image: Immo Wegmann
OpenAI’s call for a new industrial policy to guide the transition to advanced artificial intelligence is, at its core, a recognition that markets alone will not distribute the benefits of this technology fairly. The paper outlines a wide-ranging agenda — worker participation, public wealth funds, portable benefits, and expanded access to AI tools — all aimed at keeping people at the center of the transition.
But one critical piece is missing.
If policymakers want to avoid a future where AI-driven wealth accumulates among a small group of firms and investors, they will need to address who is allowed to own the upside. That means revisiting one of the most rigid gatekeeping mechanisms in the modern economy: restrictions on who can invest in early-stage companies.
Today, most Americans are locked out of startup investing unless they meet the definition of an “accredited investor,” typically based on income or net worth. The intent is consumer protection, but the effect — at least now — is exclusion. The fastest-growing companies — and often the most transformative technologies — are financed early by a relatively small pool of wealthy individuals and institutions. By the time ordinary investors can participate, much of the value creation has already occurred.
That dynamic is not new, but in an AI-driven economy, it becomes more consequential.
Ownership, Not Just Access
OpenAI’s policy paper emphasizes access, such as access to AI tools, to training, to opportunity. It proposes a “right to AI,” expanded infrastructure, and programs to help workers transition into new roles or start businesses. It also suggests a Public Wealth Fund to distribute gains more broadly.
These are meaningful steps. But they largely treat individuals as users, workers, or beneficiaries—not as owners.
Ownership is what builds lasting wealth and it is precisely how gains compound across decades and across generations. Without it, participation in the AI economy risks becoming superficial. It will be an economy where people may use the tools, contribute labor, even benefit from lower prices, but the underlying value accrues elsewhere.
The current structure of startup investing reinforces this divide. Venture capital returns are highly concentrated, but they are also where some of the largest wealth creation events occur. Excluding most people from that layer of the economy all but guarantees that inequality widens as AI scales.
If the goal is to “share prosperity broadly,” as the paper puts it, then ownership cannot remain restricted.
A Double Standard in Risk
The justification for limiting startup investment is risk. Early-stage companies fail often, and regulators have long argued that less wealthy individuals should be protected from these losses.
But this logic is increasingly difficult to defend.
Americans can legally spend unlimited amounts on gambling, sports betting, and lotteries—activities with well-documented negative expected returns. By contrast, investing, even in high-risk assets, is statistically more favorable over time, particularly when diversified.
The policy question is not whether risk exists, rather it is whether the system is coherent in how it treats it.
If individuals are trusted to make high-risk consumption decisions, it is not clear why they should be barred from high-risk investment decisions, especially when those investments contribute to economic growth and innovation.
Generational Wealth in the Intelligence Age
AI is likely to generate new categories of companies at a pace and scale that outstrips previous technological cycles. From infrastructure providers and model developers to application-layer startups, the opportunity set is expanding rapidly.
Allowing broader participation in that growth is not just a fairness issue; it is a structural one.
One proposal would be to create “Generational Wealth Accounts”, or tax-advantaged investment vehicles designed specifically for long-term participation in innovation-driven sectors. These accounts could allow individuals to allocate a portion of their savings into a curated set of early-stage or growth companies, with safeguards built in.
Those safeguards could include:
- Caps on annual investment amounts relative to income
- Diversification requirements to reduce exposure to any single company
- Approved investment pools or funds that meet transparency and governance standards
- Clear risk disclosures and standardized reporting
Rather than banning participation, the system would guide it.
Currently, only the biggest venture and private equity firms secure early positions in elite AI companies. In this system, a portion of the fund raise could be reserved for — we’ll call them — “Public Angels”. Perhaps, financial firms that qualify could raise money from these general public investors.
This approach aligns with other elements of the OpenAI framework. Just as the paper calls for portable benefits and adaptive safety nets, investment access could be structured to move with individuals across jobs and life stages. Just as it proposes public-private partnerships for infrastructure, similar models could be used to create vetted investment platforms for retail participants.
The goal is not to eliminate risk. It is to distribute opportunity.
Complementing, Not Replacing, Existing Proposals
The OpenAI paper already recognizes that capital ownership will shape outcomes. Its proposal for a Public Wealth Fund is an attempt to give citizens a stake in AI-driven growth, even if they are not directly invested.
Expanding access to startup investing would complement this, not replace it.
A public fund can provide baseline participation. Direct investment can provide agency and upside. Together, they create a more complete model of inclusion—one that combines collective and individual pathways to wealth creation.
Similarly, the paper’s emphasis on entrepreneurship—helping workers start AI-enabled businesses—naturally raises the question of who will fund those ventures. Broadening the investor base could help close that loop, allowing communities not just to build companies but to finance them as well.
One of the paper’s central warnings is that AI could concentrate power and wealth if left unchecked. History suggests that once such concentration is established, it is difficult to reverse.
If access to AI tools expands while access to AI ownership remains restricted, the result may be a more productive but still unequal economy. Workers may become more efficient. Consumers may benefit from lower costs. But the underlying capital gains — the compounding engine of wealth — will continue to accrue to those already positioned to capture them.
Opening investment pathways earlier in the cycle changes that trajectory.
In addition to pulling in needed capital — and it’s likely even more capital will be needed in this new AI era — this system allows more people to participate not just in the use of AI, but in its creation and scaling. It aligns incentives between builders and backers across a broader segment of society. And it creates the conditions for wealth to be generated — and retained — at the community level.
A Policy That Matches the Moment
The transition to advanced AI is often compared to the Industrial Revolution. That comparison is useful not because the technologies are similar, but because the policy response will need to be equally ambitious.
In the past, new institutions—from labor protections to public education systems—helped translate technological progress into shared prosperity. Today’s challenge is different in form but similar in scale.
Expanding access to investment is not a silver bullet. It carries risks and will require careful design. But it is a lever that directly addresses the question at the heart of the OpenAI paper: who benefits?
An industrial policy for the intelligence age cannot stop at access, safety nets and redistribution. It must also address ownership.
Otherwise, the future may be more intelligent, but not more equitable.
