One more thing that is worth noticing is that the simulation assumes that every User would withdraw his Bitcoins, would not send them again into the scheme. I guess a lot of present Users of the real scheme are willing to reinvest what they have received, thus creating a case as we have with banks, where the amount owed by the banks to their customers is higher than the banks real holdings.
One thing to note is that as soon as the first person deposits, the scheme already owes more than it has.
If the first depositor sends 1 BTC, he is "owed"* 1.5 BTC, and the scheme is already insolvent to the tune of 0.5 BTC.
Every time anyone deposits, the scheme only gets further into debt, because although their assets increase by X, their liabilities increase by 1.5 times X. Basically half of every new deposit counts as extra unfunded debt.
(*) except he isn't "owed" anything really. He's playing a game, and knows that he might get back less than he put in. That's part of the game. The problem is when the players don't know what game they're playing, like
these poor people.
I think that is the whole thrill of the idea. With the owner being transparent with their dealings (outside of their end game) everyone should hopefully understand there is literally no way everyone can be paid. The thrill is if you will be in the group of final suckers that will get screwed. While not invested myself, I can definitely see the appeal of such a venture.