Well that's what I'm talking about because that's what happened with the DAO and what happens quite regularly to blockchain wallets. If the DAO money was pooled into a bank account instead of on the eth blockchain then the money would not have been stolen by a hacker - end of story. The banking system also has additional measures in place to ensure that large unauthorized transactions can be quickly noticed and reversed, even across international boundaries, I know this first hand because I've personally reversed international bank transfers of much less than 100 million USD.
> No, you don't get it. The point is to remove Kickstarter, etc. The projects themselves are still an issue of course, but that's at least the point of the exercise.
I'm afraid you're the one who doesn't get it, my point is that "removing Kickstarter etc" is of dubious benefit because Kickstarter style businesses work just fine 99% of the time without the added risk of a hacker stealing everyone's money with complete impunity.
> it's one of the risks inherent in the classical system. Every third project has a horror story about frozen funds and that's not counting what the individuals themselves go through before they donate.
Having your money temporarily frozen by paypal is not even close to the same thing as having it permanently stolen by hackers.
> Only if you wouldn't donate to WikiLeaks or a related project.
This has nothing to do with my point which is "smart contracts add risk with nearly zero benefit". If you want to send bitcoin to wikileaks, nobody cares, that has nothing to do with pooling your money into a smart contract.
> No, you haven't acknowledged them. You're a thirsty equine by a large body of water but I can't do this last bit for you.
This is becoming absurd. Your list of features is literally two vague sentences.
1. "People could transfer ownership of their support (and the perk it represents)."
2. "Users could have total control of their promised funds until each phase comes due, via an escrow with an agent they trust."
--
#1. The utility is unclear. Why is this useful and why do you think this isn't already possible with a centralized system.
#2. Smart contract is not necessary for escrow.
Smart contracts do not make things better, they just add complication and risk.