To imply that the lack of a precedent is a compelling argument not to break the mold goes in the face of every major development in history.
Where was the precedent for
Brown v. Board of Education? Was it
Plessy v. Ferguson which ruled that segregation in public buildings was constitutionally just?
You're vaporizing weed, not desegregating education.
Get a grip.
Personally I have no idea why you are hung up on a beta. You and I have no idea who has already beta tested this product, only that they aren't talking. If you don't feel comfortable funding this, do not. Millions of mactards buy new iphones without knowing if they've been vetted. Think they have? One word: Antenna-gate. Buy the later editions if you are sweating it.
Everyone who buys a first generation product is a large scale beta tester. Even something with sixth sigma QC is a numbers game; you see enough, you see QC issues...witness spare parts for your Rolls Royce and space shuttle explosions.
I personally think @grasshopper's argument against beta'ing was kind of lame, but guess what? They found the gap in the market. They developed this vape and allegedly developed one or more patent-worthy processes. They started the campaign. They did all the logistical work (allegedly). They absolutely orchestrated the marketing and demoed an attractive enough product that will probably get them double what they needed to do this. They did it all WITHOUT beta's. What you and I want is 100% irrelevant and all this does is come off like whining.
Funding this is funding bringing it to market because IT DOESN'T EXIST outside prototype, which are in no way a beta unit. If you need it to exist before you pay it, then don't pay in. It really is that simple.