Accredited investors did mind for the longest time; dual class shares were banned outright for like 40 years by the NYSE (and they'd declined to list individual companies before that because of investor outcry).

They only allowed them again in the 80s as part of the larger wave of "let's stop regulating capital".

> For whatever reason

The reason is not "whatever".

Only very successful CEOs can negotiate super voting shares. In this context "successful" means "runs very profitable company".

If you're crap CEO (your company is not very profitable) then investors won't say "sure, you're crap CEO but we'll give you a complete control so that you can continue to be crap CEO".

Only when you're very successful you can negotiate complete control (which investors don't want to give unless they think they'll make lots of money).

And the best predictor of future success is past success.

Therefore companies run by CEOs with super voting shares were successful in the past and are more likely to be successful in the future.

Nasdaq is a company that exists to make money.

They make money by curating an index i.e. a list of companies and licensing that list to other companies for a fee.

If they pick good, profitable companies with great future, then the business continues. If not, the business fails.

So when you're debating "should/shouldn't", the only perspective is that of Nasdaq, the company, and they only question they "should" be interested in is: is SpaceX a good company with great feature that will make the list better.

The 6 month rule was created by Nasdaq, the company, in order to pick good companies. It's not a religion. It's not a suicide pact.

Therefore when faced with historic IPO (the largest IPO ever) it's a sign of good management that they are not applying the same rules to SpaceX (debuting at $1.75 Trillion) as they do to companies that IPO at $100 million.