.png)
The House just passed the INVEST Act, a sprawling capital-formation package that, if it survives the Senate mostly intact, will materially change how early-stage capital is raised and who gets to play in the game. For founders and emerging fund managers, this bill is not some abstract D.C. sideshow—it is a direct tweak to the rules of engagement for pre-seed through growth-stage financing.
The Incentivizing New Ventures and Economic Strength Through Capital Formation Act (“INVEST Act,” H.R. 3383) cleared the House on a strongly bipartisan 302–123 vote, with every Republican and 87 Democrats voting in favor. It is a grab bag of more than twenty capital-formation bills bundled together, aimed at making it easier to raise, deploy, and access private capital in the U.S.
At a high level, the package does three big things for the innovation economy: it expands eligibility and access to private investments, it loosens constraints on smaller venture funds and other vehicles that back startups, and it modestly raises some of the ceilings on crowdfunding and advisory thresholds. The bill now heads to the Senate and, if passed without major changes, would go to President Donald Trump for signature.
Several provisions in the INVEST Act go straight to the heart of how early-stage rounds get done.
If there is a philosophical through-line in this bill, it is the gradual erosion of the idea that only the already-wealthy are “sophisticated” enough to invest in early-stage companies.
First, the exam-based accredited pathway is a big cultural shift. Instead of saying “you can invest in a startup only if you already have money,” the government is inching toward “you can invest if you demonstrate you understand what you are getting into.” If the SEC implements this thoughtfully, it could open the door for thousands of operators, technologists, and ecosystem builders—people who really understand risk—but whose net worth is tied up in human capital rather than inherited wealth.
Second, the bill enables more professionally managed access to private markets for everyday retirement savers, by loosening constraints on certain funds’ ability to hold private assets and by allowing collective investment trusts (CITs) in 403(b) plans. That sounds arcane, but over time it could mean that a teacher’s retirement account, for example, gets some exposure to the same kind of growth that has historically been reserved for endowments and family offices.
For founders, the interesting part is not that “more capital” might be available in the abstract; it is how the shape and sequencing of that capital may change.
Expanding the VC fund exemption thresholds to 50 million dollars and 500 investors effectively validates the micro-fund model as a first-class citizen in the venture ecosystem. Expect to see more tightly focused, domain-specific funds—think 25 to 50 million dollars targeting a particular geography or vertical—backed by a slightly broader base of LPs who can now fit under the exemption umbrella.
On the founder side, a more accessible accredited-investor regime plus somewhat friendlier crowdfunding caps could shift some early-stage rounds away from being entirely gate-kept by a handful of coastal funds. You might see more hybrid rounds: a micro-VC or two anchoring, with a long tail of accredited operators and community angels coming in under Reg D, and maybe a modest crowdfunding component where it makes strategic sense.
One sleeper provision folded into this package is the HALO Act, which tweaks Regulation D to make it easier for startups to present at demo days and similar events without triggering “general solicitation” concerns.
As currently structured, founders and organizers have to do a constant dance to avoid tripping over securities rules when showcasing live fundraising opportunities at accelerators, universities, and innovation centers. The HALO language is designed to give more clarity and breathing room so that startups can actually talk about what they are raising at bona fide educational or networking events without lawyering every slide to death.
For ecosystems like the Pacific Northwest, where a lot of capital is still locally “latent” and relationship-driven, that matters. Better rules at the intersection of pitch competitions and fundraising translate into more efficient matching between serious founders and qualified local capital.
Not everyone is cheering. Critics are rightly worried that opening the private markets wider—especially to less-wealthy investors—exposes more households to opaque, illiquid, and sometimes outright predatory deals.
The bill tries to address some of this through provisions like the creation of a Senior Investor Task Force at the SEC and a mandated GAO study on financial exploitation of seniors. There are also pushes for better disclosure, default electronic delivery of documents, and explicit opt-outs, all aimed at making the fine print a little less fine.
But regulations can only do so much. The flood of capital into private markets over the last decade has already shown that investors are fully capable of losing money at scale, even under the old, more exclusive rules. If this bill becomes law, the responsibility for keeping the system healthy will fall even more heavily on ecosystem actors: honest founders, disciplined fund managers, and local platforms that actually teach people how this game works rather than just selling them on lottery tickets.
Nothing changes until the Senate acts and the SEC writes the implementing rules, so founders should not blow up their fundraising strategy based on headlines alone. But there are a few smart moves to consider preparing for:
The INVEST Act is not a magic fix for the broken parts of venture and private equity, but it is a significant recalibration of who gets to sit at the table and under what rules. For founders and funders who care about long-term, fundamentals-driven company building, the opportunity—and the obligation—is to use that new flexibility to broaden participation without diluting discipline.
