I agree the model is the future, but a for profit American company running a proprietary web service cannot be the final solution.
On one hand, patronage perfectly replaces all the draconian reasons modern IP exists as it does. Paying people to make the stuff you want them to make versus having them paid by someone looking to profit off government enforced scarcity on the produced work is much, much better for everyone involved (except the middle men).
On the other, unless Patreon itself goes non-profit / public benefit like Kickstarter / decentralizes their platform it would be insane to let a private company dictate who gets to use the platform and who gets their supporters money, on top of the cut Patreon is taking - for some parties, the 5% Patreon fee only exists to get the lowered resistance to using the platform. Users who already have Patreon accounts set up are extremely more likely to support you there than on alternatives, and they then have mindshare. But that is all you are paying for if you don't also use Patreon as a content host - the mindshare effect. All the major tech companies now, all the investors, so much effort goes into creating a captive audience / market / userbase to extort. Patreon is no exception.
But the stakes are much, much higher with Patreon than with the mindshare factor around Facebook et al. For the same reasons I'd argue the stakes are higher with github. Livelihoods depend on these platforms. Entire business models are being built for individuals to live their lives with work involving what these services provide. And unlike Facebook, their whole point is this model, where people do their jobs on web services - either as payment providers or infrastructure. The same applies to etsy and ebay, pretty much. I'm extraordinarily against how proprietary and controlling the companies behind these ecosystems behave, because they dictate what is a viable business and what is not.