Returns need to be better if there is more risk and less liquidity, right? One possible fee structure would be a reasonable fixed amount to cover expenses incl

Returns need to be better if there is more risk and less liquidity, right? One possible fee structure would be a reasonable fixed amount to cover expenses including supporting portfolio companies (maybe 2% isn't crazy), and an incentive fee on returns above some reasonable hurdle or benchmark. If the investments yield an 8% gross annual return, the VC who is not at risk is getting paid a rich 3.6%, the investor a paltry 4.4%. Maybe it should be e.g. 20% on the excess over 7.5%, 30% on the excess over 15%. Then if the investments yield 8% gross, VC gets 2% and investor 6%, and if the investments yield 20%, VC gets 5% and investor gets 15% (if I did that right, would have been 6%/14% under 2/20, at some higher point crosses over and VC does better)