When start-ups are funded by investors, the investment is structured with set milestones agreed to by both parties.

For example, a kickstarter project says it needs $500k, and here are the "stretch goals".

To add accountability, the initiator would also commit to a milestone map of deliverables. So let's say the milestones start with $150k to start, and get to milestone #1 which is a mechanics prototype (wireframe and placeholder assets, just something to test game mechanics in practice). They attach a funding milestone here of an additional $100k. This helps them get to milestone #2 to working alpha, which releases an additional $100k of funds.

If they fail to meet a milestone, they meet with investors, show off what they have so far, and ask them to cut them a break and release some funds anyway. If the investors see that the project can still be a success, they give them some slack and give them a cash injection to keep going. If the investors see that they are far off the mark and feel they're not on the right track, the investors can cut their losses and don't have to give up the remaining funds.

This is a structure that Kickstarter could potentially support. It's not easy by any means though. The setting of milestones is for the initiator to set. The evaluation of progress could be done by having the initiator put up evidence of progress, and running a poll on Kickstarter of the backers thus far, who can then vote to release the rest of the funds or cut losses, in which case the remaining amounts (less Kickstarter's cut) are returned to the backers.

I have a feeling that exuberant backers will probably approve release of funds every time. The population of backers is already biased towards optimism. But at least the backers will have some illusion of agency in ensuring the project keeps going, so when it fails, many of them can say, "well, I kept voting to keep handing the money over, I share some of the blame here".