Sorry for the delay. I haven't forgotten about your great investigative work, I've just been under the weather recently. The math appears reasonable. Even the use of ranges and estimation seems fine with me. It merely creates a probable range. It's the sources that are horribly unreliable, as I know you are all too aware. It's interesting that many believe you are underestimating total loan volume. If anything, I would think it might be overstated (That's just my hunch though).

In financial auditing there is the concept of directional testing, in which for a specific assertion of valuation we might ask would the party have an incentive to overstate or understate the item in question? I feel that it is pretty clear that the incentive for the sponsorship hustlers ( sadly the only available sources), is to overstate their loan volume to the public to make the public believe it's a great investment (this is similar to the directional incentive of publicly traded companies, I.E. Enron, Worldcom). In contrast, a small private business might have the incentive to understate revenues to reduce taxes owed ( less profit = less taxes due), since it is not trying to convince the public how great the company is to invest in(since it is privately owned/never publicly sold).

Of course, if Bitconnect.co was a legit actor with nothing to hide they themselves would publicly disclose and publish total loan volumes proudly. I won't be holding my breath for that day, as I'm sure neither will you.