It doesn't add up. If there is no change in BTS price, and the developer incurred some costs but did not deliver the product, who takes the loss?

Surely, it must be the investor who takes a loss in this case, as he can recover only half of the initial investment (because the other half is used to pay off the Hero lender).

It looks to me that your schema boils down to this: we combine an ICO with a bet on BTS price. Thus the ICO needs to raise at least twice as much funds as the developer actually needs to deliver the product and the surplus is used to bet on BTS price.

If we win the bet, the investor gets extra profit which will offset a potential failure of the crowdfunded product. If we lose the bet, the investor takes a double hit: he loses on the bet and additionally has full exposure to the potential failure of the product.

In other words:

• if BTS price rises enough: the investor is fully hedged against the product failure by the profit from the successful bet on BTS price
• if BTS price doesn't rise enough or stays the same: the investor gets some profit but is not fully hedged
• if BTS price drops: the investor takes a loss on the bet and remains unhedged against the product failure

EDIT: I'm not saying that combining an ICO with a bet on BTS price is a bad idea. It offers risk diversification which can be valuable. But in my opinion it does not magically eliminate the risk, just splits it between two quite unrelated outcomes.