I was reading the paper recently

The only real differences, with regards to that list of criteria, are that 22Cans at least produced something tangible, even if its not explicitly what was expected, and that said product was a mere "reward" in return for on our "investment" and not an actual return+interest. Otherwise, both these "schemes" do, on the most minimal observational surface level, have similarities in execution.

One of the biggest issues with crowd funding - as opposed to financial investing - is that it still exists in a sort-of legal "grey area", in that the funds provided by the supporters (e.g. "investors") isn't solidly recognized as neither an investment, nor a donation; its more closely akin to a gift, typically with the implicit (but not always explicit) understanding that - in some instances - the "giver" receives nothing in return other than the knowledge your funds helped make a thing, or supported a cause, and in many instances "rewards" for providing the gift "IF" said project is successful in its intent. The legal system is having much difficulty defining, and therefore enforcing, exactly what this new form of "invest-donate-gifting" is and how it should be handled as far as the (individual Country) laws are concerned.

Some reading for the informed crowdfund investor:

• Backers Beware: Crowdfunding Risks and Rewards
• Why Kickstarter 'can't' and won't protect backers once a project is funded
• The Trouble with Crowdfunding
• Navigating Crowd funding Legal Issues

And an interesting change in Us laws that may help guide future legal protections in crowdfunding;
Changes To “Accredited Investor” Definition Recommended By SEC Staff; The Good, The Bad And The Ugly


We would likely have a pretty tough time proving 22Cans had the intent to rip off thousands of people - without testimonials from employees and recorded proof, since they have produced a tangible product - whereas Ponzi schemes are generally pretty solid cases of fraud once they're exposed.

When someone pitches one thing and then really doesn't make much of an attempt to deliver upon what was pitched, to a degree that it seems that there were not even plans outside of a questionable roadmap, then it really matches up with PM's admissions in the RPS intervention that he was just trying to get money and saying anything to get it. The signing on with DeNA in DIRECT conflict with the Kickstarter pitch was basically another insult by 22cans to their backers, and according to PM's admissions he KNEW he would have needed more money from the start.

For example, one easy Kickstarter backer reward:
If there is a design document for Godus it's either in crayon or covered with so much NDA that...they couldn't release it anyways despite it being one of the Kickstarter backer tiers that should have been available years ago, like from the start. That they can't even produce the plans for what they are working on is the surest indication that 22cans had far from honourable intentions when creating the Kickstarter and the materials for it.

Edit:  Also, Fig.co is attempting to address many of the problems with crowdfunding.  Naturally, this would exclude those looking to use it like 22cans did Kickstarter, because actual investment opens up a lot more Club Fed-friendly laws.