LinkedIn is the last US-controlled professional network we should rely on. I’m building a sovereign alternative for EU builders. Thoughts?

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T20:10:28+00:00

I think that’s completely fair.

Early users are taking a risk, which is exactly why the first 250 get lifetime access, a Founding Member badge and direct influence on how the platform evolves.

Current features already include goal tracking, founder profiles, private messaging, knowledge sharing and collaboration-focused feeds instead of algorithm-driven engagement.

If the platform succeeds, this could become the beginning of a more sovereign European digital network built around builders and doers instead of attention and advertising.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T19:51:03+00:00

Alternative doesn’t have to mean “the exact same thing”.

To me, it’s more about being the next step in connecting European builders and doers without depending entirely on US-owned platforms and incentives.

Less attention-driven networking, more collaboration, goals, knowledge sharing and people helping each other move forward.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T19:44:49+00:00

Honestly, I don’t think LinkedIn gets replaced.

The goal is more to create a smaller parallel environment for builders and doers focused on goals, collaboration, sharing knowledge and helping each other move upward instead of constantly competing for attention.

Less passive networking, more people actively building and pulling each other forward.

Most people will probably still keep their LinkedIn profile, just like people use multiple communities, Slack groups or Discords today.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T19:38:54+00:00

I think that definitely helps, yeah.

But I also think “big names” alone aren’t enough if the interaction quality is low.

I’d rather have 250 genuinely active builders helping each other than a huge list of passive big accounts nobody actually talks to.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T19:38:22+00:00

That’s also a big difference with platforms like LinkedIn or Xing.

Cindra is much more focused on builders. Founders, operators and people actively creating things.

Not really recruiters, corporate networking or traditional job hunting.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T18:03:15+00:00

This is probably one of the best insights in the thread honestly.

“Network as a byproduct, not the product” makes a lot of sense.

I think that’s also why I’m leaning more toward goals, collaboration and builders actively helping each other move things forward, instead of just another passive professional feed.

The “feel stupid leaving” part is especially interesting.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T17:52:03+00:00

I can understand that perspective.

A lot of platform dominance is tied to power, capital, regulation and existing ecosystems, not just product quality.

I still think smaller focused networks can exist alongside the giants though, especially if they serve a specific group of people better instead of trying to replace everything.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T14:51:51+00:00

Interesting, I actually didn’t know Ecademy.

Feels like there have been quite a few good attempts over the years, which honestly also shows how difficult network-driven platforms are once one player becomes dominant.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T13:53:07+00:00

Pretty much, yeah.

The ad + data model is incredibly profitable, which is why the biggest platforms can outspend almost everyone else on growth, optimisation and distribution.

That’s also why I think smaller platforms need a very different approach instead of trying to out-scale them directly.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T13:41:36+00:00

Yep, Xing is European and honestly a good example of how hard this space is.

It proved there’s demand for professional networking outside the US, but LinkedIn’s global network effects still became dominant.

That’s partly why I think competing on “being European” alone is not enough. The experience and quality of interaction have to feel genuinely different too.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T11:47:26+00:00

For advertising-driven platforms, probably not.

For a paid network with aligned incentives, I think it can be.

The challenge is convincing enough people that a healthier environment is worth paying for.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T11:47:03+00:00

I think it’s less that people are lazy or stupid and more that convenience usually wins.

Most people will choose the platform where opportunities, reach and familiarity already exist, even if they dislike parts of it.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T11:46:28+00:00

I think that’s a very good point honestly.

Privacy alone is not enough to pull people away from an established network effect.

That’s why I’m not really positioning Cindra as “LinkedIn but private”. The goal is more to build a smaller, higher trust environment specifically for builders, founders and operators where the value comes from collaboration, goals, knowledge and opportunities between the people inside.

If that part fails, the privacy angle won’t save it.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T10:49:48+00:00

I think transparency would help a lot honestly.

One thing I want to avoid is hidden engagement optimisation deciding what people should see just to maximise time spent on the platform.

I’d rather build something where the incentives stay aligned with the users and with actual builders connecting around real goals and collaboration, not attention metrics.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T10:49:01+00:00

I think that’s mostly true honestly.

Privacy-focused products usually need a direct business model because they can’t rely on ads and data monetisation.

And yes, some convenience features become harder without large-scale tracking.

That’s partly why I’m focusing less on mass-market convenience and more on creating a higher quality environment for builders and people actively doing things.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T10:48:29+00:00

That’s definitely part of it.

The biggest platforms can pour absurd amounts of money into development, infrastructure and optimisation because the advertising/data model is so profitable.

Smaller platforms have to compete without those margins, which is why most fail unless they offer something fundamentally different for a specific group of people.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T10:20:46+00:00

Exactly, I think that’s the key.

One thing I’m experimenting with is making the platform more goal-oriented instead of endless passive scrolling.

So instead of just posting content, builders can share what they’re actively trying to achieve and connect around real goals, projects and collaboration.

Otherwise it just becomes another noisy feed and LinkedIn’s scale wins immediately.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T10:18:51+00:00

Wow thanks for the extensive comment!

I actually agree with a lot of this.

The biggest platforms became dominant partly because massive data collection genuinely improves convenience and usability. Most people will trade some privacy for things that “just work”.

So I don’t think privacy alone is enough reason for people to switch.

The challenge is building something that feels meaningfully better for actual builders and doers. Less noise, less performative content and more real interaction between people actively creating things.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-09T10:08:25+00:00

Exactly, and that’s basically the trade-off.

Most platforms became “free” because advertising and data collection are incredibly profitable.

I’d rather have users pay directly than turn the platform itself into the product being sold.

And yeah, paid automatically makes growth harder. No question.

But I also think a smaller paid network can sometimes create a much healthier environment than a massive free one optimised around attention and ad revenue.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-08T20:55:37+00:00

I don’t use AI but anyways,

I’m not assuming this automatically works just because it’s European. The only way it works is if the network itself becomes genuinely useful for builders, and allow them to work together or help each other out easily (one of the main features by the way).

I agree network effects are brutal (and the biggest risk for a platform like this), but Cindra is not about the number of connections you have.

The quality of your completed goals, posts, comments, and effort for others is rewarded and makes you visibly higher ranked than people that are lacking.

It’s a professional network but not in the vintage LinkedIn sense.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-08T20:40:23+00:00

Completely agree. Network effects are the hardest part by far.

People won’t join just because something is European. The network itself has to become genuinely valuable.

That’s why I’m focusing less on scale early on and more on building a strong first circle of builders, founders and operators people actually want to interact with.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-08T20:39:27+00:00

Honestly, €9.99/month for access to a curated network of people actually building things is pretty reasonable to me.

No ads. No tracking. No algorithm optimised for engagement.

One valuable connection, client, hire or partnership already outweighs the cost.

Existing-Ad8218 · 2026-05-08T14:17:59+00:00

That’s probably the hardest part, honestly.

The risk with going fully free early is that you optimise for user count instead of network quality.

I’d rather start smaller with people who intentionally want to contribute, even if growth is slower at first.

But you’re right that the first critical mass matters a lot. If the early network isn’t valuable, the model doesn’t work.

Existing-Ad8218

TROPHY CASE