I think it's highly unlikely that Pebble didn't negotiate that 5% way down. While it's a symbiotic relationship, I think that at this point it's safe to say that it benefits Kickstarter more than Pebble.
Pebble is getting a very cheap line of credit with theoretically no obligation to repay (hence why any money you give in a KS is a 'donation' or 'pledge').
If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers.
I was burnt by Kickstarter when a project didn't deliver. In this case, it was obvious fraud -- the guy walked away with about $15k. There was an article written about it:
The response that I got from Kickstarter was basically "Sorry, that sucks" and "Try contacting the creator through Kickstarter or through Facebook". They wouldn't provide any other contact information for the product creator.
I understand that they're responsible for the production of the product, but they do profit from the transaction. The right thing to do would have been to at least refund the 5% that they collect as a gesture of goodwill. I understand that projects fail, but they should be at least partially responsible for outright fraud.
"partially responsible for outright fraud" gets them into the business of deciding when outright fraud has occurred. I can see why they don't want to do that.
I also think that encouraging skeptical backers is going to be better for the ecosystem in the long term than doing more and more to make it 'safe'.
I suspect that the reason to continue using Kickstarter even with the 5% fee is that it comes included with publicity from not just Kickstarter, but the media outlets that will relay this story.
