[JVIDEL]

Don't know about this project, but the problem with kickstarter is that once you back a project is no longer your money, and there's nothing you can do about it.

It's right there on their TOS: they are not responsible for the project, nor to provide ways to keep the project's creators from running away with the backers' money.

This "give money and something MAY happen, eventually" model is going to collapse on itself.

[jes5199]

I actually think that this is Kickstarter's saving grace: if I give money to somebody, I know it's a gamble. I'm not a venture capitalist looking for a guaranteed return, I'm not going to pressure anyone to have a "exit strategy", and I'm not a shopper who can demand my money back. I'm taking a risk with a small, disposable amount my money - usually less than the cost of going out to dinner at a nice restaurant, and I get to help give someone the gift of working on a project they believe in, that I think the world would be better off having. And sometimes - usually, even! - they give me a gift in return.

I find this to be way more optimistic and healthy than the traditional investment model, where the VC are pushing you to sell your baby for parts so they can get even richer.

[JVIDEL]

Since when is getting what you were promised the same than a VC ROI model? VCs expect as much as possible, they want to hit jackpot. I give $100 for a watch so I expect said watch, not a Rolex!

And getting jack shit is the exact opposite of what kickstarter says it does, you could just press the donate button of any harebrained scheme on the internet and get jack shit, you don't need kickstarter for that.

[merijnv]

> This "give money and something MAY happen, eventually" model is going to collapse on itself.

I'm not so sure, crowdfunding is certainly very attractive for people that have a track record of delivering but a consumer base that is to small for traditional publishing/production processes. Think Double Fine [1], Harebrained Schemes [2], Order of the Stick [3]. The people behind these projects have a clear, public track record of delivery and the projects wouldn't have happened without Kickstarter's crowdfunding.

There is, of course, also Kickstarter original/official goal which is funding art, but here the same principles apply. With the exception that maybe art backers are a little more accepting of late/disappointing rewards at the end.

The only real question is, is there a sufficient number of such proven projects to make Kickstarter sustainable? I'm not sure, but given the size of the internet and the available talent I would suspect so?

[1] - http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/66710809/double-fine-adv...

[2] - http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1613260297/shadowrun-ret...

[3] - http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/599092525/the-order-of-t...

[JVIDEL]

Naming the best possible cases is not a good defense, I could cite how much money bankers made with CDOs and yet that didn't stop the economy from collapsing.

All those cases could have been just as successful in any other platform, or even raising the money by themselves, because they have a huge fan base.

What I'm talking about is the other 99% of projects at kickstarters, the ones that weren't created by star-devs with decades of experience in the industry. Of this 99% the majority is made by anything from people without enough experience to complete idiots who only know how to make a good presentation. These projects will get the money and deliver nothing, the backers wont get their money back, further undermining the crowdfunding model.

Eventually one of the "big ones" will underdeliver too (like diaspora) and after that NOBODY will trust this system.

[shimsham]

Does this sound like groupon for the funded-but-sometimes-a-bit-crazy-yet-awesome-business? if I were in risk assessment I'd assess the risks before gambling.