I believe that I've read an analysis of something just like what you ask from Fred/AVC some years ago, so perhaps it's worth looking at the archive. I don't rec

I believe that I've read an analysis of something just like what you ask from Fred/AVC some years ago, so perhaps it's worth looking at the archive. I don't recall the exact details, but it was roughly that each of the successive stages got (obviously) a much lower rate of return, but since the successive stages were much larger and much less risky, most of the actual money returned came after the initial stage. However, perhaps it's worth thinking more about what does it mean to 'worth to do early stage investing' - if you would just do early stage financing, then you'd have much lower returns but also much smaller fund size. Is getting a higher rate of return the top priority, or is it better to get more total return by leveraging more money despite a lower relative rate?