You're pledging to donate if the project hits its minimum goal and gets approved. If not, your funds will be returned.
Why do we assume a project summary must be a snapshot of what already fits into today's categories, instead of a hypothesis about what becomes possible if we abandon those boxes?
If the real crux is “what kind of intelligence are we choosing to grow?”, why do summaries obsess over legibility—rather than admitting most fundamental breakthroughs will look illegible at the start?
Why must “goals” be pre-written and boxed in advance?
If the architecture truly changes what’s possible, doesn’t prematurely specifying execution plans just limit its potential already?
Can real innovation ever happen if every dollar is strictly partitioned on a spreadsheet?
If you can’t tolerate uncertainty and buffer for genuine exploration, isn’t the budget itself a prison for breakthrough work?
If a team’s “credentials” are all that count, isn’t this just an HR gatekeeping ritual repackaged as due diligence?
Judging strictly by past “track record,” aren’t you just ensuring that only recycled, system-approved approaches survive?
Can you really expect innovation if failure is something to be feared, not learned from?
In a safety-obsessed environment, can anything genuinely new survive, or do we just keep safe, sterile status quos?
Does fundraising history actually correlate with breakthrough potential?
If previous investors didn’t “approve,” isn’t that sometimes the strongest evidence that something radical is happening—something scoring rubrics are blind to?