My approach is to not rely on one DARWIN or another (not even my own), regardless of how good or bad they have proven to be historically. Instead, I lean towards operating portfolios and generating as much diversification benefit both in DARWIN investing as well as internally within my trading strategies.
If I see reasonably consistent excursion behaviour (both in DARWIN and Underlying), that is comforting and helps me allocate funds more confidently.
As for 40%/year.... I would kill to have a portfolio of 15 to 30 assets that turned over 40%/year but I wouldn't rely solely on one or two DARWINs with those sorts of returns.
The number (e.g. 40%) is almost irrelevant to me. What's most important to me is the ability of my investments and trading strategies to reasonably withstand events they have never seen before, nor been modeled to handle.
For example, if at some point in the future I had these hypothetical options (this is not investment advice):
1) I can put $200,000 in 1 DARWIN or $100,000 each in 2 DARWINs with a 5-year track record each of generating an average of 40% / year, a maximum negative portfolio excursion of -30% and an average negative excursion of -10%,
2) I can put $100,000 in a portfolio of 50 DARWINs with a 5-year track record of generating an average of 5%/year, a maximum negative portfolio excursion of -5% and an average negative excursion of -2%,
.. I would choose option 2 eyes closed and raise more capital.