Perhaps if IndieGoGo actually vetted their site projects better, none of this would happen. Or if they audited actual backer projects through a team of engineers or even had a panel of experts from various industries review "flagged" projects, they could easily tell practical or possible from dream projects. Or perhaps allowed non-backers to comment on projects, to act as a non-biased voice to sway opinions. Or to allow backers to easily and automatically get refunded (I know Kickstarter does that but not sure about IGG) during and even AFTER the initial campaign, especially if the project gets over-funded. Or perhaps if they held backer money in escrow or released it in phases to the project creators in line with meeting project timeline goals (and proving that they have). And the list goes on...
So many ways that IndieGoGo can make it less attractive to scammers who are great at using 3D rendering tools and photoshop, yet still be faithful to the crowd-funding spirit to actual people who have something that works and can deliver it. But IndieGogo stands to make money even from these failed projects, so what is their incentive? Wouldn't they want to make it a safer environment so that more people will back future projects and they will make more money in the long run? Why just take the attitude of "it's not our problem, we are just a 3rd party middle-man handling the transaction"? If the platform builds a reputation of not delivering or pissing backers off, they will stand to lose more... Unless they think project creators will just move to another crowd-funding site to avoid the additional scrutiny?
I also put the blame on the media bloggers and tech news sites. They find something and recite the same drivel over and over again, repeating the story and press kit photos numerous times (like those Smarty Ring renders) without even one person questioning anything they are seeing. Why? Because the more eyeballs click on those blog sites, the more "cool" the gadget, the more speedy the hyperbole-train flies, the more revenue they make from ad-clicks. You see it every time. I listen to CNET, TechCrunch, and other tech-related content and most of them do not step back a moment and think how this device is ACTUALLY possible.
And unfortunately there are way too many people who are not familiar with the current state of technology and science. We may take it for granted but then again I assume the majority of people on EEVBlog forums are educated (or striving to learn more) and more technically-oriented than the average person who has no idea what is going on inside their phone, car, microwave, TV, etc... and simply knows how to press the buttons to make things work. So I can't blame most people for believing this Smarty Ring scam... It does look impressive and I can understand why people would go for it. They just don't know any better. So is there any protection for people in this case? We are free to throw money at whatever we want, but at the same time the project creators lied about it and did not deliver.
Everyone from the media to IndieGogo and in-between stands to profit from promoting these impossibly cool gadgets without taking any time to critique them. That's why we need to change the system to allow non-backers to comment in a way that allows the backers and creators also to see the posts. Allow us to crap directly at the source on the party-like awesomeness factor and step back into REALITY. I see that happen when the project has a FaceBook page... but even then, backers get very defensive about their decision and fight the critics. Who wants to listen to a bunch of old pessimistic
EEVBlog folks? So then you just say "the heck with them" and let them throw their money away... Scammers win. Unfortunate situation. The backers really have to fight this themselves.