[Udo]

I think those should probably be two separate steps for most projects. General funding to get the research going, making the prototype etc, then as a second step, allow the ordering of the actual product. There might be projects where this is unfeasible, but in general it would be good to separate the creation of the product and the manufacturing/distribution process. It would be safer for everyone involved, and for projects that fail during research - it would be clear that the money invested into this research is gone. At the same time, harsher measures should cover failure to follow through on actual orders.

[BurritoAlPastor]

That only makes sense for tech kickstarters. Most kickstarter projects don't have any R&D to speak of, and anyhow many production delays are the result of the manufacturing logistics that a wildly successful kickstarter results in.

Take a look at the OGRE board game project, for example. The game hasn't changed significantly since it was published I'm the 70s, but the kickstarter was successful enough that the manufacturing became much more complicated than planned.

The great success of Kickstarter is that it's a one-size-fits-all crowdfunding platform. You can only get so much oversight that way.

[Udo]

> Most kickstarter projects don't have any R&D to speak of

That's true, but this project sure did. I'm not suggesting more oversight, I was saying that the crowd's expectations should be better managed, and that maybe there could be two levels of commitment for a lot of projects. A first level where the project owners get money to prove they can pull it off, and a second one where actual things are ordered and delivered - if and where applicable of course.