I think the verbal pressure exerted by his supporters is already very great. And not only his supporters, but also here in the forum he constantly gets to hear criticism about his work speed and work organization. That he feels this pressure can be seen from some of his angry and inappropriate reactions here in this forum. I don't believe that his supporters could force him to work faster by not giving L&P money anymore. Let's assume I'm a lazy developer, or I've run out of ideas. But I have gotten used to the money. But now more and more supporters are leaving, the flow of money is decreasing. This will not change the attitude of the developer to his work. What will happen is that the developer tries with minimal effort to milk his FREE supporters with, for example, monthly teasers. In no case he will work faster again. Real power would get the supporters only if the contract terms would be changed. For example, that a backer could reclaim his money or a part of it if the developer does not deliver. But that would contradict the basic idea of this platform, which is to promote ideas that no one would support in the first place. On if it has now only degenerated into a business model.
It's maybe a couple of years since I discussed this with any seriousness on this thread & of course it was in relation to AWAM's production rate. I had a strange "snakes & ladders" working life but I did spend 15 years of it as a HR practitioner & should, in theory, be able to come up with ideas on how to replace a problematic model of working which is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
I keep coming back to the issues of patronage & creativity. IMO there needs to be a form of Payment By Results (PBR) but this should recognise that creativity is not the same as working on an assembly line, (which I've also done), so flexibility on all sides would be essential. This might encompass a movable deadline but ultimately there would have to be a cut-off point where either payment would cease, or refunds became due. There would also have to be a "no fault" clause to cover unforseen issues. Patrons as 'Commissioners of Creativity' would become straightforward customers. Flexibility issues would need to be covered in the contractual agreement. It's not simple & when I was working I mistrusted PBR, which like all systems, is open to abuse. There is nothing which cannot be solved, however, so that a mutually beneficial business model could result.
I've no doubt that the Dev is well aware of the pressure surrounding the pace of production but currently this is pressure without consequence & can safely be ignored, tolerated, or answered with a rant. There is only the prospect of patrons voting with their wallets to provide some type of (negatively oriented) incentive to deliver & there are various reasons why this does not happen to the extent that might be expected in the case of the "big games", like AWAM.
I doubt that there is a genuine prospect for change at the present time. What IS changing regularly is the production rate, which is beginning to grind to a halt. Project management skills are not that easy to find but sometimes I think L&P could have done with a manager....like a rock band!