Bitconnect - The Victim?

I've read that some (including Bitconnect itself) are calling Bitconnect the victim in their recent cessation of lending investments. So let's take a look at this and see if they are acting in a manner consistent with that. First, some assumptions have to be made:

1. There really was a software robot (bot) that could trade BTC on the open markets around the world that would shrewdly buy low and sell high in micro amounts throughout the day and every 24 hours reap significant profits of up to 2%, which was shared with all of the lenders.
2. The business model was not a Ponzi scheme that relied on new investors (lenders) to pay the original lenders. The bot was able to pay the average daily interest rates because of the 'bot' success, and therefore there was no danger of 'running out of money', because the bot would generate sufficient profit each day to fill the amounts owed.
3. Legal notice from Texas and North Carolina was being sufficiently addressed by Bitconnect's attorney and not a reason for stopping their business model
4. It was the non-stop DOS attacks that caused Bitconnect to stop it's lending program.

Okay, reading this seems pretty favorable for Bitconnect, so let's look at the logic.

1. Bitconnect decided to immediately stop all lending and return all funds and loans to the lenders.
   Where is the logic for that? After all, they got the DOS attacks thwarted (remember, they are still up for Wallet and Trading services). So the key question is this: If you wanted to stop the lending because of Texas and North Carolina, why would they return existing loans already made? After all, with their successful bot they could easily keep making the money, pay their interest payments and slowly shut down the lending program as the capital returns are made. No more pressure from the USA, the lenders are happy, the contract between Bitconnect and lenders is not violated and everyone is made whole. Instead, they "returned all the money" to the lenders.
2. Which brings us to The Big "money return" Slight of Hand.
   Although Bitconnect's entire business model is the buying and selling of BTC, they decide to pay the lenders not in BTC, but in BCC coins, Bitconnect's own cryptocurrency. Which is rather brilliant since BTC retains it's proportionate value but BCC's value would expectedly crash once the lending program was stopped. After all, it was the strange requirement that you had to buy BCC in order to make a loan to Bitconnect's bot that drove the demand and ergo the upward price pressure on BCC. So knowing this, Bitconnect had to pay the lenders in BCC, because it did not have the resources to pay the lenders in BTC.
3. The failure to pay lenders in BTC is proof that Bitconnect did not have the money it was supposed to have in reserve in order to honor their commitments. And the only logical reason for that (with a successful Bot) is that it was a Ponzi scheme from day one, and it had to crash once it started the "Capital Release" phase.
4. In the last couple of months, there was a big push to sign up new lenders "$100,000 Give-away for new users only". Classic behavior on Ponzi schemes to bring in new cash for older investors.

So, do we have any more schemes like this now? Advertising amazing trading Bots, but you have to buy their own coins to take part? Yes, we do, and my advice is to STAY AWAY from them!
Thanks for reading!