[k-mcgrady]

There is a simple solution to this problem. Don't allow project creators to offer the project as a reward! It should be ok for people to try and fail with projects on Kickstarter. By preventing creators from offering the product as a reward backers will understand better that it isn't a pre-order system. It's an "I need money for this idea. It might work or it might fail but if you want to help me try, give me money" system.

[mkhaytman]

Unfortunately, this project creator hasn't provided any proof that the money was spent working on the product. If there were photos and records of work and progress being attempted, and at least some communication with the backers along the way, I suspect the tone and deposition of the comments would be different.

It's a lot to read through, but there's pages of people just asking for transparency to see the status and to understand what challenges were coming up. There's just as many comments from the creator that things are going great and we should be ready to ship in no time at all.

Trying out a new project or product and failing is one thing, never attempting it and running off with the cash is a different matter entirely.

[k-mcgrady]

I agree that they should be posting updates to prove the money is being put to use. However looking through the comments I see a number of people referring to the backing as a 'loan' and complaining they didn't get the product 'they ordered'. I think it's clear this 'company' has screwed people but backer expectations are also completely wrong and Kickstarter needs to solve that problem. People seem to think if they give you money and you fail they can get a refund. That's not how Kickstarter works/should work.

[photorized]

Their FB page hasn't been updated since 2011, and their Twitter account is deleted.

There isn't anything even resembling progress updates.

[Caerus]

Then what's the incentive to participate at all? Would backing a project be equivalent to a 12 month high interest loan? Or, equivalent to an IPO where "backers" get a certain percentage of the company (which I'm sure opens a massive legal mess).

I don't think most people have a problem with projects failing. It's when creators take the money and don't appear to even attempt to produce the product that something is wrong.

[k-mcgrady]

>> "Then what's the incentive to participate at all?"

Someone believes they can create a product you want. They can only create it if you give them some money to get going. The incentive is a product you want getting built. Do you want this thing enough that you're willing to risk $10 backing it? I think for a lot of people that's enough incentive.

[wubbfindel]

Not even a VC backs a project purely because they believe in it - they look for the potential return.

[k-mcgrady]

A VC invests large amounts of money (which isn't their own) for financial gain. That's very different to chipping in $10 of your own money for something you want to see built that probably won't be built otherwise.

[zanny]

I disagree. VC's put money in enterprises to get more money out. But their transaction is just money -> time -> more money. Kickstarter isn't the solution (there needs to be a platform that has legally binding contracts that the funded party deliver within some time frame or face fines / reimbursement of funds for fraudulence or negligence, the same way some investors can go after their interests if they abuse the money) but what people want is money -> time -> thing they want.

And I think it is the only way to produce information anyway, so refining the technique and recognizing its value is economics is huge.

[Retric]

The NPR model where they may or may not stay on the air regardless of your donation is a much better long term model for kick-starter than pre-orders. IMO, the best way to keep the idea alive is to make the retail versions of the product cost significantly less than those pre-orders.

Something like: Support Baldur's gate III, donate 100$ and get a retail version of the game when it comes out. (estimated retail value 50$)

The idea being your making it clear your doing something other than shopping when you donate to a kick-starter project.

[thefreeman]

A VC is an investor. A Kickstarter is a donation. That attitude is a big part of the problem.

[jrochkind1]

Not 'even' a VC? Of course not a VC!

There are plenty of kickstarter projects that people fund because they want to see it happen, with the 'gifts' being just an extra spur.

But NOT the technology ones. The technology ones are pretty much all pre-sales, with people spending money only to get a product, indeed.

But they're presales on something that doesn't yet exist. With no contractual obligation to actually deliver it.

I suspect the tech projects have a much higher rate of failure (==not getting delivered) than the 'art' projects. But also that the tech projects take in much more $$ than the 'art' projects, meaning more money for kickstarter's 5% cut too.

[aplusbi]

This is no different except that the ROI is not money. It's a product.

[JeremyBanks]

Do you even know what Kickstarter is?

[fragsworth]

I don't see how this solves the problem of accountability at all. All it can do, maybe, is mitigate the backlash from the backers a little bit?

[akkartik]

By setting expectations that there is none.

[BurritoAlPastor]

Literally every Kickstarter project I've backed was for the printing of a finished work. (Mostly board games and books, plus one album and one movie.) Your suggestion defeats the reason those projects were ever kickstarter, and Kickstarter would be shooting themselves in the foot to implement that.

[itsybitsycoder]

I would stop using Kickstarter (as a backer) if this were the case.