I do not quite agree with the contract being risk neutral. The contract implicitly allocates the risk on Patrick's side by promising only a fixed and capped rate. In the opposite event of this business going better than expected there'd be no doubt the excess goes to Patrick for the risk taken.
Now for Kraken, this argument might hold better.
The argument does not hold better for Kraken. Patrick also
explicitly stated that any losses in Kraken would be covered by himself personally, and that he "insured" contributed deposits. Patrick caps the rate in Kraken too, and explicitly states that excess profits are kept by Patrick, and losses will be covered by Patrick.
Contributed capital is backed by my personal funds.
...
any losses will be funded personally.
...
Returns obtained over and above 2.5% are taken as my fee - that's how I can afford to support the minimum return and "insure" the capital.
In both Starfish BCB and Kraken, Patrick gets to keep any profits above the rate cap, and he has to cover any losses.
Edit: Here's another quote from Patrick stating that he guarantees the full 100BTC value of a 100BTC Kraken deposit unit and is responsible for losses:
I am guaranteeing a minimum 100BTC price so am exposed to losses.