Your approach depends on a very simplistic idea about investors. In reality, the fall on a spectrum. Some demand low returns but insist on a high level of confi

Your approach depends on a very simplistic idea about investors. In reality, the fall on a spectrum. Some demand low returns but insist on a high level of confidence about the outcome. Others are investors in name only; what they really do is glorified gambling. They are almost sure to lose, but the (slim) possibility of an outsize reward goads them on. The thing to appreciate is that Kickstarter can help creators validate an investment-worthy idea in the marketplace, shifting it from the high risk / high reward category to the lower risk / lower reward category. That means more money from eventual sales can go into product and market development, instead of an inveator's bank account. In many cases, the need to pay an inordinate return kills good ideas in the cradle. By giving creators a way to lower the cost of the capital they depend on KS opens a range of possibilities that would remain closed if high-stakes gamblers were the only bankers in town. If you and your friends don't want to help these project either, that's fine. But why take the extra step of mindlessly smearing the people who run them? Personally, I see Kickstarter's ability to atomize risk as a good thing, especially when it can drive down the cost of capital while checking its more extortionate tendencies. I've never met a "panhandler" who can do that.