There’s the question maybe if you can control your shaft with a rigid rotor, or support the extra weight from a relatively heavy shaft and rotor. It’s like attaching an autogyro to a tether and powering it from the wind, but instead of the rotor pointing mostly up, it now is pointed mostly downwind if you can find a way to angle it up a bit relative to the shaft, or perfectly perpendicular with the shaft if you can’t. So you’d then have to build a significant bank angle into the rotor, I think, and do cyclic pitch variation and/or control surface deflection, to increase the vertical lift at the top of the loop. You’d compare the extra vertical lift you’d get from that at your desired cut in speed to the weight of the system, and add some significant safety margin to that to reliably keep things in the air, and also take into account system drag and desired tether tension.
Easier to start with a rotor where you can do both that and also cyclic roll variation, but maybe also uses a bridle for the weight saving. Maybe you can do that with blades on a ring, but at that point you’re adding so much control that you have to wonder what the point of keeping it rigid is.
I don’t think this folding crown makes for a very good collapsible rotor. You’d attach the blades to the two points that come together upon expansion, for the shorter cantilever arms and the assumed easier control from the two fixed points, but now you can’t expand the rotor as now those points can’t come together. Attaching the blade to the single point doesn’t give you the benefit that connecting to the two points give, and also still gives you the drawback of using double the number of rods that you want, so then you’re better off choosing a different geometry that does give those benefits. A quick example could be a ring that doesn’t use this scissor mechanism, but is just rods or dominoes in a ring connected with hinges that pivot. The blades could be attached to fuselages with two longer pivoting rods between consecutive fuselages. Or if you use the dominoes from before you could use the same post-tensioning trick here. That would probably also allow you to expand the shaft with the expanding rotor instead of the other way around and make a complex, rigid, rotor, to which you could add control surfaces.
If you want to make a complex shape then the question is probably what shape do you make the mating surfaces of each domino and how many channels does each domino have, and how do you design the shape so the lines going through the dominoes do as few wraps as possible to minimize line friction.