I sponsored them, out of a sense that their idea (distributed ownership of social networking) is a good idea. I think Facebook's multiple faux pas added a huge impetus to their publicity, the least of which was the NY Times article. Frankly, if you can get a NYTimes article you are heads and shoulders ahead in publicity.
However, one thing did bother me about this, not the lack of contracts or whatever, it is a donation, with no expectations. But what are the rules that govern micro-finance loans, venture capitalism, etc. I mean, why couldnt you just have KickStarter work as a micro-VC plain and simple, and get shares in these projects? VC tend are required to only get money from large net worth individuals. Microloans it appears anyone can participate in? So why not micro-VC ? I guess the difference is in Oversight? If I donate money to something, I know I am giving it away (and presumably have a motivation such as supporting free software or whatever). However if I invest it in a MVCfund I have some expectation of getting it back - Micro-loans have a much lower degree of risk - VCs are at 5% or whatever, chance of success.
Anyone else thinking about this stuff?