You've now added that people loaned him money and Patrick was the borrower which also points to a depositor/bank situation. That the fact he was wrong when he said he had sufficient funds to cover deposits in the case of a Pirate default is somehow just as much the depositors' fault because they heard that statement and then proceeded to extend funds to Patrick?
Not precisely. It's just as much the depositor's fault because they drew substantially the same conclusion with substantially the same information.
In that case, if someone tells you to loan him money for expanding his mining farm and claims to have enough current mining power already to pay it back later, if he ends up being wrong, someone the lender is at fault and should accept that risk was somehow shared because it was some joint venture? It was a loan. Extended money, not an investment in a company. If it was an investment with shared risk, Patrick would not be offering a fixed rate on deposits. The rate would be proportional to profit or loss because you own part of the business. His offer was to take deposits and pay interest on it, just like a bank. The business was his own only and all profit from the deposits/lending difference in rate went to him. Not "investors". The bank now voided deposits without going bankrupt.
If the circumstances were analogous, the result would be analogous. If the circumstances were not analogous, the result would not be analogous. To make this more analogous, those loaning the money would have to agree that the mining farm would produce enough revenue to pay back the loan and agree to the loan only because they agree with that assessment. And you'd need the fault in the erroneous assessment to be evenly split between the parties. In that case, as in this case, the lender's incorrect assessment harmed the borrower just as much as the borrower's incorrect assessment harmed the lender.
You repeat that risks are shared among co-investors with example situations demonstrating it and that profit is shared just as much as loss is. But you bring no argument why it should be considered as a co-venture.
It wasn't a co-venture. It should not be considered as a co-venture. It was, however, a contract based on a common mistake.
I claim that it cannot be considered an investment in Patrick's operation because there's no ownership of Patrick's operation for depositors and profit is not shared either, neither should loss.
I agree that that's the first step. But then the next step is to look at whose fault the loss was. To be ridiculous, if the investors loaned money to build a factory and then burned down that factory, clearly the damages from burning down the factory would offset the repayment of the loan. In this case, there is some fault on the part of the investors that offsets the repayment because it harmed the borrower. (These are actually two slightly different ways to look at the same thing. You can view common mistake as akin to shared fault, but conceptually it's a bit different.)
Patrick acted as a bank, as a financial service provider, offering a fixed rate on funds entrusted to him and requiring an higher rate when then lending said money, keeping 100% of the bank's profit. Had it been a co-venture/investment like in your examples, the margin between deposits rates and loans rates would be shared among the investors.
I agree, but that's irrelevant. I'm not arguing that the contract was a co-venture or investment. I'm arguing that the contract was premised on a common mistake.
Depositors were not investing in Patrick's operation. They were depositing funds in exchange of interests. Deposit accounts are similar to loaning money to a bank, which has the responsibility to keep the deposits safe and also offers a small percentage interest in exchange for the loan.
I am not arguing that the terms of the contract specified a share of the losses. I'm arguing that the losses occurred because of a mistake and the harm from that mistake should be born by those who made the mistake and caused the harm.