> Will other projects feel pressure to refund if they don't pan out?
They should as it's one of the remedies Kickstarter requires projects to pursue should they be unable to complete the project and fulfill the rewards:[1]
> 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. A creator in this position has only remedied the situation and met their obligations to backers if:
> [other required remedies]
> * they offer to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward (in proportion to the amounts pledged), or else explain how those funds will be used to complete the project in some alternate form.
Well, obviously, if you still have the money, it's nice to refund the money. I think the parent meant more "will this create an expectation in Kickstarter backers that they'll always get either the product or their money back, thus creating some sort of reputational debt-slavery for the project creators who genuinely just use up the money and fail? And doesn't that defeat the purpose of Kickstarter?"
> will this create an expectation in Kickstarter backers that they'll always get either the product or their money back, thus creating some sort of reputational debt-slavery for the project creators who genuinely just use up the money and fail?
Hyperbolic imagery aside, the expectation is already there. They can't just walk away from the project with a shrug should it fail: they have a contractual obligation to demonstrate that they did not squander their funds and to provide the best possible outcome to their backers. If they fail to do that, the terms of the agreement allow backers to seek legal action:
> The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling the promises made in their project. If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement, they may be subject to legal action by backers.
In this case, Matchstick's project creators have assessed that they have enough money to pay everyone back, so they're doing exactly what the terms of the Kickstarter agreement between backers and project owners have obligated them to do: provide the best possible resolution to backers by, in part, returning the money.
Another project may determine that they can't pay everyone back: in that case, they're subject to the requirement that they "demonstrate that they’ve used funds appropriately and made every reasonable effort to complete the project as promised". If they can't do that to the satisfaction of every backer, they're still on the hook. That's why a lot of times, project failures will have a note about providing a refund to anyone who requests one instead of Matchstick's strategy of proactively refunding everyone.
Maybe it's more PR on their side? If they ever want to run another KS campaign it helps to not have already created a lot of bad will with the target audience.
