Kickstarter is trying very hard to NOT back that perception. They have and continue to make changes to make it clear that Kickstarter is not a pre-order site. "Kickstarter is Not a Store" - http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store
Kickstarter tries very hard to backpedal on that perception when it's about to blow up in their face. They made that "Kickstarter is Not a Store" blog post and the associated policy change after the press showed interest in the seedy side of Kickstarter; I forget what the exact catalyst was because it was some time ago.
>I forget what the exact catalyst was because it was some time ago.
As I recall, the main Kickstarter hoopla going on at that time was Lifx [0]. Also, September 2012 was the original delivery date for Pebble [1].
Kickstarter doesn't get hit with these fees since Kickstarter isn't processing/receiving the payments. It appears to me that money goes directly to the project owner's Amazon Payments account, so any chargebacks would land there as well. Even if Amazon lays the blame for the chargebacks on Kickstarter, they're probably safe. Since they're still in business, it's pretty safe to assume their overall chargeback rate is…
"It appears to me that money goes directly to the project owner's Amazon Payments account" Interesting I didn't know that. "Even if Amazon lays the blame for the chargebacks on Kickstarter, they're probably safe." Given what you have said though what would be the scenario where they could even do that? If someone is setting up (as you've pointed out) an account with amazon payments then where does amazon have standin…
First off, I have never run a project on KickStarter so I don't know any of the details first-hand. I'm only guessing -- Amazon has a product called Amazon Flexible Payments Service. One of the things this API allows is marketplaces where you facilitate payments between buyers and sellers and take a cut of the transaction. This is probably how KickStarter works and takes their 5% cut; it's KickStarter's code and API keys that kick off the payment, and while the money ends up in the individual Amazon Payments account of the project starter, the fee gets sliced off and deposited to KS's account. So while they are not a processor or the recipient of the funds, they're still tied to every transaction; plus, they no doubt have a special arrangement with Amazon due to the amount of money they're handling and the fact that Amazon doesn't accept other crowdfunding services as customers of its payment services.
The project has reached a $196K funding while the initial goal was "only" $12K. Maybe Kickstarter should limit the amount of money to this initial goal, or at least to twice the amount of this goal. If a project looks promising, more people are likely to pledge for it. But if Cryptrade thought $12K was enough to develop their project, that's probably all they actually needed. And $12K is both less tempting for Cryptr…
As soon as I saw how much over the minimum it had gone, I too had the same thoughts. However I am not so sure about a kickstarter imposed maximum, as certain projects (say non physical goods) can grow indefinitely (in terms of the quantity of the product given out) but have a minimum amount before they are able to bring the product to market. I think it is more useful for the creator of the kickstarter to set a minim…
This seems like a good idea now that I think about it some more. The Kickstarter goal should be the minimum amount needed to get a viable product to market. Once you've figure out that you can make it, you should shift your product to a store model and direct users from Kickstarter to the store to purchase it.
Too much money in these cases may create a sense of complacency and encourage "take it and run".
This project has been funded for a year and half with no progress to show for it, only thousands of comments from backers wondering when they will receive a refund or at least an update on whats going on. Unfortunately the project founder has flown the coop and kickstarter doesn't claim a lick of responsibility. Want to get away with stealing 200k? Just make a kickstarter project and never deliver, it's working for t…
Are failed startup founders also stealing millions of VC money? KS is a risk-investment, not a preorder webshop.
OK so I'll launch a Kickstarter project, 10s of thousands of people will back me and I'll just say that I can refund their money after charging them. I think only several hundreds will request the refund, the rest is mine then?
This seems rather unlikely (hyperbole, to be frank) - those using Kickstarter are surely aware of the nature of the platform, not thinking of it as a checkout. Unless the refund process is unduly complex, there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason why the vast majority of backers wouldn't ask for a refund.
I think a lot more Kickstarter backers (especially on big projects like this one that attract a lot of first-time backers) think of Kickstarter as a checkout than as a way to contribute to cool projects and get something in return if the project succeeds.
>> "Then what's the incentive to participate at all?" Someone believes they can create a product you want. They can only create it if you give them some money to get going. The incentive is a product you want getting built. Do you want this thing enough that you're willing to risk $10 backing it? I think for a lot of people that's enough incentive.
Not even a VC backs a project purely because they believe in it - they look for the potential return.
A VC is an investor. A Kickstarter is a donation. That attitude is a big part of the problem.
Kickstarter is trying very hard to NOT back that perception. They have and continue to make changes to make it clear that Kickstarter is not a pre-order site. "Kickstarter is Not a Store" - http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store
Kickstarter tries very hard to backpedal on that perception when it's about to blow up in their face. They made that "Kickstarter is Not a Store" blog post and the associated policy change after the press showed interest in the seedy side of Kickstarter; I forget what the exact catalyst was because it was some time ago.
Pretty sure it was the Pebble Watch. Their largest, most publicized project was called in to question after repeated delays.
I think the subsequent changes (i.e. no renderings) made make the platform substantially better. But they still need to get away from that "presale" perception that the general public has.
The first few projects I backed were friends or just because I thought they were cool ideas that would be awesome in real life. Getting something in return was really, in its purest form, a 'perk'.
The project has reached a $196K funding while the initial goal was "only" $12K. Maybe Kickstarter should limit the amount of money to this initial goal, or at least to twice the amount of this goal. If a project looks promising, more people are likely to pledge for it. But if Cryptrade thought $12K was enough to develop their project, that's probably all they actually needed. And $12K is both less tempting for Cryptr…
When the goal has been hit, users are more likely to back the project than when the goal was not hit. I think Formlabs founders also explained this in their post-Kickstarter interviews- they intentionally set initial goal below what they actually needed, in hopes that it's surpassed quickly.
Same thing happened to me with Window Farms, backed for $1k and they "cant afford shipping to canada" ... At this point I dont care though, at least they made the product and got it into the hands of the US backers.
After a few bad projects like this, Kickstarter now has the following disclaimer and new hardware guidelines "Product simulations are prohibited. Projects cannot simulate events to demonstrate what a product might do in the future. Products can only be shown performing actions that they’re able to perform in their current state of development. Product renderings are prohibited. Product images must be photos of the pr…
Product renderings are prohibited.. but I wonder if photographs of cleaned up 3d prints of those same files would be permitted.
Bit like showing the full walkthru of a 3D modeled house all nicely rendered, without having actualy built the house type approach?