If it was $5b in 2006 and $10b in 2016 then you can speculate how often they raise it. Your prediction that $1 million would turn into $4.5b, and the fact that the fund sits at $10b clearly indicates they distribute profits more than they raise the cap.
No. So let's say it was $5b in 2006 and they were letting it compound. By 2016, at 35% interest compounding it would be worth over $100b. So by the simple fact that they raised the cap in 2016 to $10b (and the fund was not worth $100b) tells you that they are not letting it compound and as the article states, dividing the insane profits.
