[macspoofing]

>I always thought that backers were paying a lower price because in a sense they were bearing a lot more risk than later buyers

If that's the attitude and that's how backers see themselves, then the backers are just setting up the startup for failure. There's a reason why most startups don't go for debt financing and if they do, it's usually out of desperation.

>I expect a heavy discount in exchange for the higher perceived risk and so kickstarters who don't do that just don't get off the ground?

Sure. That's how payday lenders make their money. Doesn't mean it's good for borrower to use them.

[saganus]

Not sure if I would call it an attitude, but I can certainly understand people that got burned more than once having a lower tolerance for risk. I.e. why should I keep on having faith in Kickstarter projects if they keep failing on me?

The answer could be product/creator fandom or maybe trust in the creator's team ability to successfully deliver something really cool, so a discount is not expected e.g. The Oatmeal seems to have delivered twice IIRC and so backers' confidence in him is high, thus they would probably not blink twice backing a third project even if there's zero discount on it.

But the answer might lie on the other side as well. e.g. Godus' fans loosing faith in a creator due to lack of promises delivered. So if Peter Molyneux launches a kickstarter project again, people would probably just be willing to "bet" very little money (if at all), because you are likely to get nothing, or very little, in return.

How is that unreasonable?