This language from the contract, or at least the draft posted here, seems to imply that while the loan will be paid back through, and used for, various investments, it is not an investment itself, just a loan.
You are either a sock or new here but clearly it was not a loan. He did not give me BTC.
This was mostly in response to your assertion that since Gurrty chose to not take a payout immediately, and instead make a "risky investment" in order to profit, you are not obligated to pay him back since the investment did not work out. My point is the contract that we have access to seems to state that this is a loan, not an investment, with the investment aspect being your explanation for how you will pay back the loan.
Yes, he did not give you BTC, he gave you bonds, but they were assessed in terms of their value in BTC, and the contract states that you will pay him back in BTC, regardless of BTC's relative value to these bonds.
I don't know how you can argue that this wasn't a loan, when these are you own words from the contract.
Anyway, you stated earlier that what has been posted is only a draft of the contract, not the final thing. If the final contract differs significantly from what has been posted, I apologize, since I am making my argument based on the draft that I have access to.
if it is a loan, should i just give him back what he "loaned" me? loan might be the word in the draft but that is not what it was. also the value placed on the bonds were not the current fair value and were only valued at that price because of other details in the contract.