Also do you envisage any way of helping fund less glamorous projects?
What is the harm in someone putting their own money into a pseudo-science experiment? It will fail if it's an incorrect hypothesis either way.
In fact, the feedback loop between a "believer", their money, and reality, seems like a feature not a bug.
We are doing a first pass at vetting in the sense that we are looking for projects that we think the public will be excited about, run by researchers with good credentials / affiliations, and that don't include obvious "junk science."
Ultimately, though, our model puts the power to pick projects in the hands of the public!