He should list this in his discussion of risks, in that he never quite explains why its bad to put the financiers in editorial control of his movie, although they clearly do a good job of narrowcasting typical formulaic movies (to the small fraction of the population who likes that kinda stuff and therefore might not like his stuff). Also as per the narrowcasting comment his movies now sound interesting to me although I got bored with movies and stopped watching a long time ago (like most people, looking at percentages). So his risks section also needs a better plan to reach outside the usual movie going public than a kickstarter and maybe the Sundance festival.
He may get more money from the general public if he writes to a general public audience who has no idea who he is, rather than what appears to be indie movie fans. I'm not asking for a major editorial content change, just add another 10% length explaining why would the average dude off the street who doesn't do the movie thing since he was a kid, care, much less send him some dough?
Note that I've personally sent/kickstarted Jason Scott the nonfiction documentary producer enough to buy a plane ticket or two over the years, this isn't a new idea.
Now this is assuming what I got out of imdb and kickstarter has any relation to reality. Maybe Garden State is just another boring romantic comedy or teen fart joke formula movie. Can anyone who's actually seen his movies, comment?