Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way you phrased it previously suggested equivalence (all wealthy are insiders) rather than tendency (more wealthy are insiders).
It would help my argumentation skills if you could you point out where I suggested equivalence. I started with 'more like an insider than an outsider'.
I remembered your comment as, "anyone with more than $4 million is an insider."
If there's any lesson to draw, perhaps it's that more concise statements are less likely to be misunderstood. The more words, the more room for overlooking some of them.
It also might be the context. You were responding to someone saying Gates or Buffet is an outsider (again, I don't have that comment visible). Your comment in isolation would imply "more like" just as you wrote. However, as a response it sounds like a direct contradiction: he's an insider, not an outsider.