>
I wouldn't mind so much if there was a reward structure in place. GS made like 30 million dollars in gross profit. Okay, so if I give Zach 10k of my money and he makes 10x on his investment, why am I not going to get 100k from him? Oh right, because its kickstarter.This is why I've generally only backed things I believe are genuinely novel and in need of support. I recognize backing as a donation, not an investment.
I'm all for the creation of a true "crowd" investment platform, but I imagine the administrative and regulatory aspects of a such a service pose a big challenge.
>It exists under the guise of this "help us kick this project to life" but for Zach this is just a "get money, and dont give investors who made it happen anything back other than tchotchkes."
While I have no clue about the costs involved in making movie and I don't know who this guy is, I've certainly seen projects which fit that bill and yes, it's absurd.
As far as I can tell, Kickstarter has done very little to prevent misleading projects other than added guidelines for hardware projects last May.
For instance, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping people from creating projects that only deliver the titular product as a stretch goal - blatantly misleading.
>Kickstarter's reputation could be hurt if it just becomes a way for the well off to connect with investor rubes who are being ripped off and don't realize it.
I don't know, as long the people get their tchotchkes eventually they're likely going to be happy.
I think the imminent danger to Kickstarter's reputation is having a large notable project go completely sideways. Suddenly, thousands of people who thought they "pre-ordered" something are going to realize that they actually just gave their money away and Kickstarter doesn't guarantee anything.