Kickstarter Should Do More to Protect Backers

The only thing that should happen is that to fund something you have to click some really plainly worded opt-ins. But I'm betting regulators will get involved and remove this funding option for those who can't afford lawyers who specialize in crowd funding. Or can't then afford the discovery that will need to be done before they can request (crowd) funding.

[ I understand that I may lose all my money and that I have no recourse ]

[ I can afford to lose this money and not get anything in return ]

[ I understand that this is speculation and that only X% of projects deliver ]

What makes places like California vibrant is the entrepreneurial spirit, and that means risking capital on new ventures that could or not work.

In Europe(or Asia) is more like, If I put money you guarantee me that I am getting my money back, if not I will own you for the rest of your live.

You have to prove that you have experience being successful in order to success, but if you were you would not need them in the first place.

So nothing risky or new is made on Europe, if it is,it is bought by American companies like Skype. No risk, so no google, no Amazon, no facebook, no Microsoft, even having probably more educated people.

Kickstarter guaranteeing projects would mean no risk projects, and huge bureaucracy cost.

Today it is my work as a backer to evaluate projects, this is my responsibility,  I don't want my big brother to do it for me.

If you want to buy a product with little-to-no risk, then go to Amazon.com. If you want to connect with individuals trying to do cool stuff, help them with their project, and maybe get something in return, then Kickstarter is for you.

Certainly, Fraudsters and abusive individuals will always be drawn to tools like Kickstarter - and the team there need to be vigilant to keep blatant abusers away from the system.... A few will always get through. That is a risk that we all take ... but it is a risk that is well worth it for the service that Kickstarter provides to "fringe" projects that are simply too high-risk to attract conventional funding.

http://www.cryptozoic.com/articles/cryptozoic-saves-doom-cam...

Brings up the interesting question of how to handle KS projects that don't raise enough money to ship.

He must've just had no idea at all about how to efficiently allocate the funds....

I mean I am on a team that raised like 170k to make a god damn video game and he can't make a board game with over 100. That makes no sense at all...

I think Kickstarter has done more than enough, but my prediction is that failures of this kind will not be tolerated by regulators. The US is very business friendly; considering limited liability and bankruptcy law. However on any front touching consumer protection the law often reaches too far, and punishes failure egregiously.

> If you're unhappy with the "reward," or if the project never gets created, well, tough. Take it up with the project creator.

However, from the Kickstarter terms of service quoted directly below:

> Kickstarter does not offer refunds. A Project Creator is not required to grant a Backer's request for a refund unless the Project Creator is unable or unwilling to fulfill the reward.

I believe that the project "never getting[sic] created" would certainly be cause to deem the Project Creator as "unable ... to fulfill the reward."

Of course, they had no control over his actions. Ordinarily I'd look at the past output of the project creators to decide whether to fund a Kickstarter. Which is why funding Ryan North's choosable-path-adventure project was such a no-brainer.

So this particular instance is unusual, the guy behind it traded on the reputations of other people.

If I start up a kickstarter for a video game and I fail to deliver the video game I think that is fine. If I also fail to deliver something like tshirt rewards though that is plain mismanagement.