Pretty grim, actually. I would need lots and lots more money to be able to trade the full size futures at the same risk level as in forex. Maybe better to let them steal a few pips until I can find a relatively honest forex broker.
I don't see what the problem is. 7 USC 1(a)(18)(A)(xi) makes if clear you are eligible if you invest $10M sometimes or $5M while thinking about maybe hedging. So with the leverage you can still currently get on FX, maybe you only need a $50-100k forex trading account to meet the official definition. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1a I'm not sure what consequences there are, if any, to being optimistic about your qualifications either.
10m in assets...not leveraged positions or bp. I don't know how you're even construing that to mean leveraged bp of 10m. It states it pretty clearly.
10M in assets means assets, not assets net of liabilities, and hence includes leveraged positions. If they meant 5-10M in net worth, perhaps exclusive of your home equity, they would have written that just like they did for the accredited investor standard. https://www.investor.gov/news-alerts/investor-bulletins/investor-bulletin-accredited-investors
The accredited investor qualifications were written with an individual in mind. ECP definition was written from a firm perspective which manages assets. You can't take $100,000 and buy $10M worth of 2y treasuries and suddenly qualify to be an ECP. Likewise, I'd caution people who are tempted to self report optimistic numbers. Lying to a regulator is WAY WAY WAY more serious than cheating on your taxes or lying to your broker. Plus, you then open yourself up to lawsuits from just about everyone.
Not to mention the fact that even Interactive Broker's compliance dept is going to catch on when you claim your account that's been worth around $100K for the last 3 years is now an ECP.