[logicallee]

regarding your point 1, let's see what happens if $100 isn't a red herring. Let's call this assumption H+ (a real herring? I don't know. Anyway, it's H+. The entirety of the comment below is from the perspective of H+, i.e. that it is not a red herring, but a meaningful actual seed amount that made a difference.)

If it's not a red herring, then it is far more impressive to turn $50 into $400M than to turn $100 into $400M, as that is a factor of 8million versus a factor of 4 million only. It's twice as good. But turning $1.50 into $400M is even more impressive, as (by H+) in this case this is a factor of 266 million, i.e. 33 times better than a factor of just 8 million. Likewise, if he had turned $1,000 into $400M it would have been only a factor of 400,000 and if he had turned $10,000 into $400M it would have been an even less impressive factor of 40,000. And if he started with $100K, a decent but by no means excessive seed, the factor would have been only 4,000. (There are higher seeds, not mentioned here.)

So we have data points for factor returns ranging from 8 million to 4,000, and (by H+) his data point actually legitimately falls at exactly 4,000,000x return attained.

Now what is impressive is that if there EXIST data points at seed multiples of 4,000,000x return, they should be investable data points around that value, with a capped upside. It should be possible to angel somebody else's business for values ranging from $1.50 (aggregate total fully subscribed seed round) to $9,000 (i.e. 90x as high as the seed round we are discussing from the article). That is quite remarkable, if true. H+ has remarkable consequences.

[Retric]

Your assuming all capital can be invested which seems unlikely given <1000$ investments and significant capital.

Assuming a limited 'deal flow' you want to tailor things so you get the maximum total returns not just highest return on invested money.

[logicallee]

Define "you". I didn't think a maximum round of $9600.50 for a seed into a business needs to be considered by a VC who normally invests $500,000 for example - it can be a different group of people. Likewise for a $100 'seed'.

It is hard to imagine that these amounts are actual legitimate seed amounts into a business, but, there you go, that's H.

If we don't allow H then it's irrelevant whether the OP started with $100 or $9700. i.e. without H this is not a real, significant, or relevant number. (instead it is clickbait, for example, or a false memory due to lack of recording of actual spend at that stage.)

H is the hypothesis that it is, in fact, relevant and meaningful.