FWIW I will be at full Kelly regardless.
Think you're misunderstandign what the 0.25% and 1% are.
They're the amount each investor is PERSONALLY willing to risk per bet - and what their investment adds to the MAX WIN. With all alternatives suggested there are ratios of HIGH:LOW risk investments where someone coming in with new investment doesn't increase MAX WIN - making their investment fundamentally useless as it dilutes profit for everyone else without adding anything.
Worse still, in some suggestions, if low risk investment is a lot larger than high risk then high risk end up being forced into being low risk - as MAX WIN gets set based on low-risk. Just try looking at something like 20K low-risk investment, 5K high-risk for some of the proposals - and you'll see it works out that low-risk get to force high-risk into also only risking 0.25% of investment at most.
A proposal that relies on assumptions about the ratio of low to high risk investment is NOT a valid proposal.
Nor is one which can allow more investment to join without raiding MAX WIN - as by definition existing investors are already willing to cover any bet up to current MAX WIN - so no more investment is wanted if it doesn't raise it.
This whole debate is largely about a minority of investors who want some way to only personally accept small bets whilst passing all big bets to others. Which is based on some sort of entitlement belief that they should be allowed a disproportionate share of low-risk action whilst leaving higher-risk action to others.
What would totally amuse me right now is if dooglus said : "OK - mechs and co have convinced me that it's fine for some people to only partake in the first part of bets and leave the high-variance stuff completely to others. So I'll personally cover 100% the first 1 BTC of every bet and the rest of investors can have everything above it." And then the really juicy low-variance stuff would go to someone who actually had some entitlement rather than to those with a mistaken belief that they have a right to only back the stuff that doesn't need backing (as those willing to cover all the action could back it without their money).
I have a method that is alternative to Dooglus's. But, it doesn't have anything of the things you mentioned so you must be mistaken.