"...when BCC was at $10 you would have 10 coins and now BCC is at $200 your investment went to 0.5 BCC. " The triangular nature of the price relationship between BTC, BCC, and USD makes it hard to follow, and in all probability deliberately so. You correctly point out that as long as the BCC price rises, fewer BCC tokens will be due to the "lender" upon maturity of the "investment".
"BCC uses deflation" Its very sustainability depends on it. Conversely, imagine that the BCC price fell from $200 to $100 . In that case Bitconnect would need to pay out twice as many tokens as it was lent @ $200 upon maturity. let alone if the price fell to $10 (20x the tokens to pay) , however i think our suspected perpetrators would be long gone by then.
The daily loan percentage payout would hypothetically be subject to similar deflationary effects, but daily rates are completely unverifiable and arbitrary. Bitconnect could simply set the payout percent to 0% and claim the "trade bot" activities became unprofitable. This slight of hand is not possible with the return of capital at maturity in which the full USD capital amount is to be repaid . If there is a BCC crash we might start to see those top two cohorts drain more quickly. However, the relative effect of this would depend on "loan" volume, which like almost everything else about BCC is undisclosed.