Yes, but it's not as weird as it sounds. It says the users are creditors as well so using the users' accounts to pay the users is not particularly strange.
Kind of like the banks back in ‘09 making their depositors take a haircut to ensure the bank didn’t go under. Nobody really complained because it was the offshore banks where oligarchs and such hide their money and they received ‘ownership’ in return for them stealing their deposits.
I think it's fair to expect users to know the coins they buy might lose value, but this is a bizarre and unexpected risk. It's clear from this thread that hardly anyone thought to consider this risk because they are trading off the expectations created by other, better regulated institutions (namely domestic banks).
Edit: I may have misread your intentions, when I wrote this I thought you were saying this arrangement was OK because it has happened elsewhere.
“Invest in Crypto, by giving us $100 with which we will buy $100 worth of BTC that we own.”
How is that not weird and who would follow a QR code on their TV ago “Invest in crypto” if this was at the top of the page they opened?