https://kickstarter.com is an expanding paradigm in solving the lack of ability of large groups of people who have a buildable goal to trust eachother in how much they say they want the thing to be built and many also dont say these things to eachother at all because they think others, recursively of game theory, will think the same thing and not spread the word until a large enough group of people then says to eachother if at least half (or 3/4 or whatever fraction might work best) of us will act now then we would all get this thing we each value more than our part of the payment.
Thats not what happens. There is no time any of them can get the others to believe that enough of them will not back out after they see a rush of others pay toward the common goal first. Nobodys theoretical plan of payment much motivates the others.
Kickstarter works because everyone who puts their money in gets it back if the project does not reach target money amount within a few months, and because as more money goes in, each next money increases motivation of others to put the next money in, and this is seen most strongly either when a project is about to run out of time and refund all the money or when its not out of time but very close to the target, and the next money is paid into a ratio of the difference needed and the existing risked money being refunded. They expect others might do it, depending on how much time is left, but money usually crosses the finish line quickly once it gets close.
I think it would work better, get more projects built delivering at least as much value thats paid in (not a way to trick anyone into acting against their own best interests), if some projects soon starting the kickstarter process would commit for the duration of the funding, to 1 of the following new models...
have a moving target which if at any time it rises above the funds risked, all such funds would be refunded as if the constant date had been reached, and each project may need a different curve but generally they're more exponential than linear, and some kinds of projects take longer for word to spread. This would have the disadvantage of people predicting if others will let it fall just as the moving target is about to pass, but it should be no worse than ignorance of the whole remaining time in one block, the same problem as in the first paragraph above why it doesnt work much without kickstarter.
The second model is for the projects to, as committed when funding starts, only take what rises above the target, and on short intervals or gradually either lower the target to something like 90% (taking that 10% too) and risk that 90% being refunded if nobody else pays in, or similarly keep raising the target as everyone can see in advance, so either the project delivers on some agreed on schedule enough value or people would stop paying in. To not leave the money hanging there past its usefulness, it seems a problem to let people put in the last little money to avoid loss of the rest, which they would likely do even if they didnt think the project was worth nearly that in total, and as people started to notice this about this model, they would start predicting that they should only go for lesser money targets since its going to get dragged up by the last payer.
This looks attractive to those wanting more money fast for these projects, but in general its best that people dont become motivated to pay more than they think something is worth. However, since kickstarter projects are generally undervalued compared to stronger influence of economic models which pay more to those who first invest, in money and patents which further pull money toward those who already have it (not that kickstarter doesnt have any of that, but its more the things that people decided together are a good idea than what some will hold over others). In that context, I dont think such extra motivation at the end, even when others know its going to do that, would be entirely wasted, and maybe instead proceed with caution on how much is the imbalance between products made through kickstarter and products made primarily because a few wanted to get rich exceeding the demand for such products, the rest of the getting rich charged to the disconnect between those who cant get all the components or processes together because their legal ability to produce was sold earlier, and this is why theres a billion starving people who could be doing productive more skilled work, because the peoples ability to assemble components and processes to build new tools and infrastructure and get big things done has been sold to a paradigm that new economic models like kickstarter, bitcoin, and even wikipedia if you think of its influence on people to know the unbiased view of many important subjects to be an economic model that is traded when people are motivated to fix small biases on pages they think are important. In general, an economy is anything that lets people agree how to transfer perception of value toward better use, motivating the doing of things that nobody individually would or could do.
Whats coming, and we've just scratched the surface with counting value in scalar numbers and ways to adjust those scalars, is something entirely new, a kind of Nash Equilibrium between people more directly between the minds, absorbed to learn and ask questions and pushed back to affect the world, through basically what is the math that lets computers understand videos and stock waves in general a proven kind of statistics that I see soon being hooked into games, into paint programs, into EEG headsets, into music, into every form of data we have, which so far has been mostly in the background of how the world works, but with the rise of bitcoin, kickstarter, and the parts of the Internet where people communicate directly to eachother, it appears the time has come for a kind of "money"-like tool that flows thoughts and motivation into and out of minds to the extent they find it a good trade, and like anything that becomes uncomfortable to look at like pointing your eyes different directions, if peoples thoughts dont flow together well, dont find Nash Equilibrium, the mouse movements or EEG headset waves would jump around more, which others in the network who had been more statistically pattern matched to them would find not in Nash Equilibrium with their visual bidirection flowing process, and they would go their separate ways gradually as statistics are observed and adjusted for or more quickly if people just take their hand off the mouse. If people will do what eachother trade for numbers on a screen, through bitcoin, then interactive video generated by a group mind, some people and some statistical code, is just a more advanced form of number we touch eachothers minds with.
My difficulty is figuring out how to get this Nash Equilibrium started, as it doesnt predict that well without people doing most of the thinking (having far more neurons), but what I can offer is that it can educate people on how to balance Nash Equilibrium in many places mostly not even thought of that way, a way of viewing game theory the same way between parts of one mind and between many minds and anything else intelligent.
These recent thoughts on kickstarter's model, while it is really good the way it is, seem to be a good start for at least debating why kickstarter and bitcoin work, why bitcoin tens to bubble exponentially (I think this would even out if there was more competition in ways we trade thoughts and motivations with eachother), the world is changing in ways most people dont understand about where information is flowing from who and to who as a kind of money or motivation flow, valuable information yes but not nearly the most efficient paths. I'm trying to avoid a bitcoin-like bubble in the thought stream when it "goes viral", which could be dangerous in an economy based on flow of statistical thoughts (and mouse movements or EEG headset to flow back at it). Like the Singularity Institute cautions developers of new mind tools and forms of simulated life, Newcombs Paradox of Game Theory seems to be important to predictions of others predictions of predictions.. and so on, why you would do one thing or another based on seeing others do what they would ordinarily think is the worse thing but repeatedly they were rewarded for it, so do you follow as motivated by Nash Equilibrium to hold the equilibrium stable avoiding the cost of shaking from almost any change even if it would in time be better for everyone, or do you take whats in both boxes and call everyone's bluff, thinking you are starting to (not equilibrium anymore, or at least less) have a better strategy that will work in time.
