Well, the whole point of lighthouse was that all crowdfunding was for a fixed goal. If the fixed goal was not met, no bitcoin would be exchanging hands.

One of the theoretical updates it could have had is that it would had been able to introduce more control on funds distribution once a fixed amount was met. This done via multi-sig and by separating the funding in several transactions. Meaning that funds would be only accesible as goals were met by the project. And obviously goal would only be done if the funding for that goal was unlocked for the project. Which is something that was not really developed or thought in full by hearn just vaguely hinted at as far as I know. But that is how I would personally think it should had be done if Lighthouse had continued to be developed. I do also think that would go a long way to keep projects honest and humble. And it would also serve as a strong tell you if a someone is truthful and genuine in their intentions with a project. Because since it is an optional feature, if you see a new project from someone unknown, but you see that it has this option turned on for their project, then it is a lot easier to take a chance on it.

On the scamming front. Well, in the case of this approach, the first step is obviously clarity and transparency on making the point across that it is a high-risk endeavor with no solid guarantees. Which sounds like an obvious thing to have, but, you really don't see this point made as well as it should be on anything related to funding when it comes to all of the cryptocurrency space.

Now, there are other solutions to mitigate scamming even further. Just that that is a whole other long discussion. But I do know that there are 4 different companies still working at it from 4 different angles. It is just taking a long of time to see any results. All relating to portable reputation tied to provable identities. In this case identity not meaning it being a legally registered name.