No, we should. Complain loudly about "fradulent investment schemes".

But at the same time, wonder what the _next_ money-losing thing that anyone who thinks Kickstarter is an "investment scheme" is going to need government protection from.

Do people _really_ think Kickstarter projects are the sort of thing that requires government/SEC oversight?

Edit: In retrospect, looking through the replies in this thread, there clearly _are_ people who consider Kickstarter backing to be "investment". I'd love somebody of that opinion to explain why they think that, and whether it's a wording/terminology issue with how Kickstarter and/or projects describe what they're doing, or whether it's something fundamental in the Kickstarter and/or crowdfunding process.

Not at all: complain about it all you want, and make your decisions in accordance with your understanding of the relevant risks.

Just recognize that a certain level of risk - in the form of possible breaches of promises - is inherent in the nature of all of these things - traditional investment, pre-orders, and Kickstarter alike - and that there's no way to pre-empt that downside without eschewing the upside.

With a traditional pre-order I have a pretty strong guarantee from my credit card company. With a traditional investment I take on the risk in return for a chance of a big gain. As a client/customer Kickstarter seems to combine the disadvantages of both with the advantages of neither.