Totally agree - both that the new terms are more closely aligned with the idea of a Kickstarter project (and the creator-backer relationship) and that their rea

Totally agree - both that the new terms are more closely aligned with the idea of a Kickstarter project (and the creator-backer relationship) and that their real effect will probably be pretty minimal. What I find compelling is the softening of the ‘refund’ language - I think that the notion of refunds is sort of at odds with the idea of a project being sort of a joint effort between creators and backers for the reason you mentioned. Emphasizing the communication/accountability reinforces the collaborative creator/backer relationship that exists elsewhere in the site (like in their deliberate naming of ‘backers,’ ‘creators,’ ‘rewards,’ etc.). It encourages backers to think of themselves of investors taking a risk because the believe in something, rather than consumers. To me that’s definitely more compelling and a huge part of the value of crowdfunding platforms as a funding mechanism that is changing the relationship between consumers and the things (products, games, artwork, etc.) we consume. In reality, most people will only be perusing the ToS as it pertains to refunds once they’re already agitated and are looking for their legal recourse. If the relationship between a project and its backers has already eroded, I’m skeptical of the impact of wording changes in the ToS that don’t concretely impact anyone’s obligations. For those interested in the space, though, it does let us speculate about what Kickstarter is thinking about, and what pains it perceives.