No. The trust you need for a central curator is trivial compared to what's needed toward fundees. Anonymity aggravates problems with accountability. Thus, I don't find crowdsourcing to be a particular good example where blockchain-ideas help to create and coordinate collective action. Yet, I think there are two areas where value can be added to kickstarter: 1) scheduled payouts where funders vote to cut project funds in absence of progress and 2) make the curation process more transparent.

However, I figured that what's holding all the blockchain collaboration platforms back are not only scalability and cost issues. More importantly, people don't want to broadcast their data for very uncertain returns. You can see that in haggling parties for when and who gets access to aggregate data in the connected car, health care and scientific research.

Therefore, I focus to find meaningful ways around data-sharing tensions, specifically in battery R&D [1]. One way is to align academic and commercial interests better. The other way is to objectively measure what a data donor's synergistic effect was on the platform as a whole. This kind of computable attribution is hard, but I think doable at some point and in some narrow domains earlier.

Some infrastructure that allows to selectively reveal and collaborate on data is put forward by guys at MIT [2].

[1] http://openbatt.org [2] http://www.enigma.co