Yeah. And you have prove of your accusation, bordering clearly on calumny, in the form of what exactly?

If nothing else, you should show some decency and delete your comment, that probably was written, while half asleep.

I was thinking this as well, minus the HN part. It is similar to what eBay sellers would do with a hot auction. Jump in on the bidding with a second username and run the price up to where either a) someone else outbids them or b) they find the highest bid, retract the bid and then bid right under the highest bidder.

Same scenario with Kickstarter. One could set an ideal funding point and run it up with fake fundings. Catch the attention of media and then hope that the bandwagon happens getting them more than what they are asking. Once funded over the amount, back out your fake fundings and voila - funded.

Maybe it's because I've been to horse auctions in which bidding on your own horse is explicitly allowed, but I don't really even see anything wrong with funding-and-defunding your own project.

I don't know how horse auctions work, but I wouldn't compare openly bidding on your own property with using shill accounts to bid someone up and then retracting your own winning bid.

Well of course the bidding isn't "open" in that sense. You don't even know until after the hammer falls whether the final price came from a bidder or from the auctioneer himself, in order to meet the reserve.

http://www.keeneland.com/sales/conditions-sale

Also, I stated that I found the practice of funding one's own project unobjectionable. I think defunding threatens the entire model of KS, but defunding one's own project is the least objectionable aspect of that. Whatever Kickstarter can do to prevent or ameliorate defunding, within the bounds imposed by credit card practices, they should do.

Do you realize your post sounds like nothing but complaining? Please spare us by clicking delete.