The casualty count in Israel has been low since before there was an Iron Dome. In fact, Israel's casualty ratio to Palestine was far worse in 2012 than in 2009, and in 2012 they had Iron Dome and in 2009 they did not. If the Iron Dome impacted Israeli performance, it was for the worse, at least according to raw casualty count. Body count therefore may not say anything about the Iron Dome's effectiveness - it may be saying a lot more on the relative low quality of Hamas' arsenal. And there was extensive property damage in Israel in 2012, though it was only after the conflict was over that the Israeli media bothered to cover it - until then, it was all about the Iron Dome as the savior. I bet the same is the case now.
Well, I can see why do you want to believe in the Iron Dome's success, then.
In any case, most of its funding is of foreign origin (e.g. US government), ans since it's clear "the product" needs improvements and their current funders have no vital interest in it, it'll need committed investors.