Now I'm really torn, but think it just has to kill it for the issues of risk.

A builder that knows the area very well.

While the debt would whip out most of the profit for 'x' amt of time, it would seem to be logical to take on the risk at a net zero income for x amt of years if after that point, the cashflow is all positive.

Then she still only makes 2% extra for taking the risk of you not paying versus a bank.

The intent of allowing some sophisticated investors was to allow people who fully understood the risks of what they are getting into.  

I have been on New Western's deal list as well as another bigger local company and everytime I underwrite these deals there is very very minimal left on the bone let alone contingency funds for going over budget on the flip...

I’ve done 1 rental property and sold it to gain capital and did 1 flip that didn’t go so well so not 100% experienced to say the least.

I’m also open to exploring short-term rentals, private lending, or passive investing in funds—anything that maximizes returns while keeping risk and time commitments manageable.For context, I’d consider leaving my job if this could become a full-time venture that surpasses my current compensation (low-mid six figures).

U can do 100% if you want but you should have plenty of cash on hand as well. 

But shorter term debt greatly amplifies risk.