Honestly, I don't see it as a problem. As long as all participants will be paid according to their contributions, then it's fine with me. You know, if you try to understand ICO according to its definition, it simply just a new reference to a kind of crowdfunding or fundraising campaign. And as you probably know also, raising money for a fundraising campaign usually takes time to conclude unless, of course, they've accumulated enough money to support and finance their cause. Now whether one accepts it or not, all ICOs are like this. They are simply just a fundraising campaign. If they do not reach, say, their soft or hard cap, then expect that the people behind the ICO project will try to extend either their pre-sale or ICO to at least break even on their expenses. If they do that, expect also that they will try to change some of their rules, particularly about their bounties, that is, if they launched one.
Finally, someone explained it very well. Totally agree with this one. Although not all of us has an open minded capability of understanding. Not because there were changes it means a scam, some ICO's are just making adjustments mainly because of the funds.