I quite agree with your opening, though I would go farther. I would even say that good ideas are plentiful, practically an inexhaustible resource.
The rest of your reply shows a highly fractured interpretation of what I wrote, but I'm getting quite accustomed to people twisting things to their own mental convenience (and on my interpretation I've largely discounted your reply as unrelated to what I actually think, even if I wrote unclearly (which I doubt)). On Slashdot that twisting often involves burning straw men arguments. I certainly don't think "complete" is equivalent to "perfect". Or perhaps I should just agree with you that there is no "perfect", even in project proposals. No skin off my nose since it has no relation to my suggestion. Well, on second thought I admit it would be nice if the project proposals were perfect, but I certainly have no such expectation. I think the metric of sufficient goodness would be that enough people want to support the project. (One obvious response to a proven lack of funding is to improve the proposal and try again.)
Perhaps it would be better to suggest that my presentation could be taken as a constructive suggestion to improve some of the flaws in crowd funding? At least all of the crowdfunding websites I've investigated suffer from problems that might be addressed by this approach to adding accountability. The problem I have with that suggestion is that I'm approaching the problem from the perspectives of modular software design and cost recovery, with various tweaks such as the metric of a successful architect or lawyer applied to programmers who choose to adopt it. There is quite a bit of research that supports the claim that people enjoy their work more when they have more control over it, and even though some people claim they care only about the salary. (There's also a chronological problem in that most of my suggestion predates my first encounter with Kickstarter.)
Or maybe you are upset that I reject the purist (and non-monetary) philosophy of Stallman? Sorry, but I don't think a pledge of poverty is the only way to be a better person. (Amusingly enough, one part of my suggestion was strongly influenced by a constructive email exchange with rms himself, but so far there is no credit to be shared. Actually, based on that exchange, he'd probably reject it.)
As I see it, the real problem is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, but only in the literal sense. The idiomatic interpretation is quite misleading. These days I have become so casual I just find it amusing to watch the world spin along its increasingly crazy course. #PresidentTweety, for example.
Not sure if you regarded it as a constructive suggestion about hiring contractors, but if you are so wealthy, then I'm glad to send you my congratulations. Even more so if the congratulations would get some money donated to some cause that might make the world better.