My hats so far off to you guys, it's on the floor in front of me. Can't wait for my Lockitron to arrive.

But if people keep succeeding without being hosted on Kickstarter itself, that 5% fee might look more and more unattractive to people starting large projects. How much value does being on Kickstarter really add to your project, and how much is simply due to the brilliant fundraising model?

A lot of our pledging happened from traffic coming directly from Kickstarter. My guess here is that people that come to Kickstarter have an intent to back and they become shoppers. User lands on one cool project, gets excited, browses, which leads to other projects being discovered and potentially backed as well.

At the end of the day, it's a funnel and your project has to be discovered in order for some users to convert to backers. It's also about connecting your project with the right audience. By cutting out Kickstarter you cut out a large portion of users that are more likely to convert, reducing chance of initial social sharing, crazy trends that create press stories, etc. This is why I don't think this is a trend.

Lockitron and App.net have their own credibility based on who they are and who has invested in them.

If I was to put up a SelfStarter page, there isn't anything to stop me from just taking everyone's money regardless of the funding status.

I think eventually, people will raise money on as many sites as they can, similar to offering multiple payment methods.

I actually spoke with the Kickstarter guys back in 2009 when I was considering branching off their idea specifically for product based ideas, thinking that it could be "Amazon for stuff that doesn't exist yet".

We all agreed that the idea should happen, but Kickstarter didn't want to do it for two reasons:

1. Their goal is to help artists succeed. They're artists themselves, and the guy who started the site's been working on this for years. It means a lot to them to help the little one-man filmmakers.

2. The risk in having products that aren't delivered on time, in the same form as envisioned, or aren't even completed was just too high. They were terrified of having a backlash of backers who thought they were purchasing a product when in fact the transaction is structured as a donation.

The second one is what makes me worried. What happens if, worst case scenario, Pebble goes bankrupt without producing any items? Who takes the hit there? Is it Amazon, Pebble, Kickstarter, or the backers? It isn't clear yet because we haven't had a high-profile failure yet. But it's only a matter of time.

It also seems like the small-donation structure should make it difficult for any individual to have cause for action; I see some of KickStarter's recent changes as not wanting to even get into that fight, but that's because even winning would be expensive (and as has been suggested elsewhere in the thread, they're actually in it for the indie films.)

Or do you mean just the popularity risk, if enough projects don't deliver?

I’ve also backed quite a few Kickstarter design projects. The biggest risk backers face from Kickstarter design projects is personal safety, not failure to deliver. I’ve spent many years in new product development and the items delivered to me wouldn’t come close meeting even the most basic consumer safety codes. Plus I have no expectation that the project creators have any sort of product liability insurance.

That being said, I think the Selfstarter model can directly address that risk. Backers are dealing directly with project creators. The liability is clear. I expect that in the future, project creators will need to demonstrate product liability insurance coverage and that they will meet safety regulations. I hope to see that option somehow added to the Selfstarter code so that project creators can show they have insurance coverage and that they will meet safety standards.

It's not the only one...

Kickstarter's new policy is about them not wanting to act as an online store, not about taking away the "fund my new convenience store" vs creative projects. Its more about them not wanting to be used by anyone (creative projects included) as if they are there to basically be a selling platform. At least thats how I viewed it.

A Better example would have been.. http://gofundme.com/

Noble projects but the company isn't as successful with general crowdfunding vs kickstarters creative market.

We also ordered a Lockitron for our office already. We have keypads on our house, and we love them, and imagine Lokcitron will be even more love.

Disclaimer: it's my brother's company.

Cam, you rock.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044349330457803... (google "Small Businesses are Finding An Unlikely Banker: Amazon" to get around paywall)

Thanks for being awesome.

EDIT>> Apparently only the second fork button does this...the one I clicked after reading the page content :)

I just pushed a fix.

Great job by the Lockitron team.

"We've kept Selfstarter really simple, but that also means that you should beef it up with your own authentication, administration and product management code."

Glad someone went ahead and made it happen.

I just did a project on Fundrazr last month. If only this was available then.. kudos!

This is perfect! Thanks!