So why take the money and put it on a Bahamas account when you can fund your job for at least one decade?
Take the money, release your underdelivering project, make a profit, launch a new project.
Why so gloomy? When you ask someone to build you a new kitchen and give them a 50% deposit, do you automatically assume this is a business model for the lazy and near-fraudulent, because they take money upfront and who knows what they'll deliver?
This is
exactly the kind of baseless fear-mongering that keeps people like EA, Activision and Ubisoft in their cushy monopoly of delivering un-innovative, DRM riddled, stale, and action-centric crapware (with tens of millions spent on hype-ups). And making their devs work 85 hour weeks, if not shutting them down altogether just to rip profitable IPs out.
I think what you're not taking into account is that on top of kickstarter funding, the devs will also get sales funding. I mean, you can still buy the game post-release if you didn't donate. This is surely the best way to get to the Bahamas - ask the nerds to give you financing, make a good game free of Bobby and Johnny's malign and incompetent orders, sell a million, use the funding to make an even bigger sequel etc. Then sell it all to Bobby or Johnny and go to the Bahamas with a villa, yacht and Aston Martin.
Your argument is almost like saying any business owner who finances his enterprise by bank loan, will probably deliberately do a poor job and siphon off the loan funds so that when the business inevitably folds, he's already feathered his nest. Yes, some people do that, but that doesn't stop banks lending to businesses.