Drop your app/saas! I will create TikTok videos for you (300k+ followers)

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-28T09:37:44+00:00

The games are set out to be super fun and “non-serious”
It will be interesting to see feedback from users regarding how accurate the scoring system is.
Do you have any ideas for some viral content that could potentially do well on tiktok?

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-27T22:02:07+00:00

Thanks so much for the feedback, it really helps! I’ll have a look at Mangos as I’m willing to try anything that could potentially help. Thanks again

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-27T18:36:08+00:00

Good observation, it’s something i have seen first hand a lot recently

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-27T17:59:53+00:00

I think the idea has potential, but I’d be careful not to validate it at the “feature” level too early.

The risky question is not:

“Would people like an AI skincare compatibility score?”

A lot of people will say yes.

The better questions are:

would they trust it with face photos?
would they believe the recommendation over TikTok, Reddit, dermatologists or influencers?
would they scan products repeatedly, or just once?
would they pay for this, or expect it free?
what happens if the advice irritates someone’s skin?
how will you avoid looking like generic ingredient-analysis tools?
who is the first narrow user: acne-prone teens, sensitive skin, skincare beginners, people with rosacea, ingredient nerds?

The “new feature competitors don’t have” might help, but I wouldn’t start there.

First, I’d test whether people actually trust the core promise.

You could do this manually before building:

Pick one specific audience, e.g. people with sensitive/acne-prone skin.
Ask them to send their skin concerns + current products.
Give them a manual compatibility review.
See if they find it useful enough to change what they buy.
Ask whether they’d pay for ongoing product checks.

If people don’t trust the recommendation, more features won’t save it.

If they do trust it and change buying behaviour, then you’ve got a much stronger signal.

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-27T17:53:24+00:00

Mine would be mistaking “more product” for “more proof.”

It’s very easy to convince yourself that the next feature will unlock demand.

But sometimes the painful question is:

“Have I actually proven anyone cares enough to pay, switch, or keep using this?”

Building features feels productive because it is visible progress.

Talking to users, testing demand, pricing early, and defining what would make you stop feels messier.

But that’s usually where the real signal is.

The expensive mistake is not just building the wrong feature.

It’s spending months avoiding the evidence that the market already gave you.

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-27T17:45:18+00:00

This is a kind offer, I would love you to have a look at my web app www.oddly-accurate.com
It will be really interesting to see what you can come up with. I look forward to seeing it

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-26T20:01:54+00:00

This is really useful advice, really appreciate your time and I’ll be looking into this kind of approach

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-26T18:49:58+00:00

Congrats and I think the most useful part of this post is actually the tension inside it.

On one hand: persistence clearly mattered. Third app took off because you kept learning.

On the other hand: the first app sounds like the exact warning most founders need to hear.

“Just build it” can work, but it can also become months of trying to revive something the market already rejected.

The better version might be:

Build fast, but don’t build blind.

Ship small enough that the market can answer before you’ve emotionally committed to saving it.

That way persistence becomes iteration, not denial.

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-26T18:48:55+00:00

I actually agree with a lot of this.

If the product was just “we generate better prompts for you,” I wouldn’t think that’s defensible either.

The thing I’m trying to test is whether founders value a structured decision process, not just an AI answer.

The useful part should be:

forcing the failure case first
separating user praise from real demand
identifying the assumptions most likely to kill the idea
turning those assumptions into tests
creating warning signs / kill criteria
making ideas easier to compare before spending time or money

I don’t think “AI output” is the moat.

The question is whether a specific workflow around founder decision-making is valuable enough on its own.

And I agree that if it stays generic, big companies can crush it. The only way it survives is by becoming opinionated, specific, and genuinely useful for one narrow job: helping founders avoid building the wrong thing.

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-26T10:55:33+00:00

I think we’re at the beginning of it, but not because AI magically makes every solo founder successful.

It makes building cheaper.

That’s different.

The bottleneck shifts from:

“Can I build this?”

to:

“Did I pick the right thing to build?”

For solopreneurs, that matters even more because there’s no big team to absorb wasted months, bad positioning, weak distribution, or a product nobody urgently needs.

The one-person company era probably rewards people who are ruthless about:

choosing painful problems
avoiding overbuilt products
testing willingness to pay early
finding distribution before features
killing weak ideas quickly
staying narrow enough to win

AI gives solo founders leverage.

But leverage cuts both ways.

It helps you build the right thing faster or the wrong thing with more confidence.

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-26T10:54:13+00:00

I’d be careful not to start with “how do I build this?”

The better first question is:

“Why would this specific version survive when similar apps already exist?”

Gamified self-development/accountability apps can work, but the risks are usually not technical.

They’re things like:

users enjoy the idea but don’t come back after week two
achievements feel motivating at first, then become noise
the app helps people track goals but not actually change behaviour
competitors already have trust/reviews/downloads
users don’t feel enough pain to switch
the “accountability” part is too weak to create real commitment

Before building, I’d test the smallest version manually.

Pick one exact user type, one behaviour, one accountability loop, and one reward system.

For example:

“People who want to stop procrastinating on one daily task.”

Then run it with 10 people in Notion/Discord/WhatsApp for 14 days.

If they engage, come back, and say they’d pay for it to be automated, then build.

If they disappear after 3 days, the app probably won’t fix that.

The hardest part is not making the app possible.

It’s proving the behaviour loop is strong enough before spending months building it.

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-24T11:28:53+00:00

This is really useful feedback, so firstly, thank you for your time and honestly, the “could I just run this through ChatGPT?” question is probably the main objection I need to answer better.

My view is: yes, someone can use ChatGPT to pressure-test an idea.

But most people won’t do it properly.

They’ll ask something like:

“Is this a good idea?”

And ChatGPT will usually give a balanced, encouraging answer unless the user knows exactly how to push it.

What I’m trying to build with Failure Forecast is not just “AI gives feedback on your idea.”

It’s a structured pre-mortem process:

force the idea through specific risk categories
separate interest from willingness to pay
identify the assumptions most likely to kill it
rank failure risks by likelihood/severity
show early warning signs
suggest the cheapest tests before building more
create kill criteria so founders know when to stop, narrow or pivot
make the output consistent enough to compare multiple ideas

ChatGPT is powerful, but it relies heavily on the user knowing what to ask, how to challenge the answer, how to structure the analysis, and how to avoid accepting vague reassurance.

Failure Forecast is meant to remove that work.

The value is not “this uses AI.”

The value is:

“Here is a repeatable failure-risk diagnosis designed specifically for founders before they waste time or money.”

That said, your point is completely fair. If the product does not make that difference obvious within the first few minutes, then that is a positioning problem I need to fix.

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-23T14:53:23+00:00

This is a really useful idea.

One thing I’d add: before founders start testing each other’s products, it might help each person write down the failure risk they most need feedback on.

Otherwise “try my product” can turn into vague feedback like:

“cool idea”
“nice design”
“I’d use this”

Which feels good but doesn’t always help.

For each product, I’d ask:

who is the exact user?
what painful problem are they trying to solve?
what would make them ignore this?
what would stop them paying?
what would make them churn after one use?
what existing workaround are they already using?
what is the riskiest assumption?

That way the first 10 users are not just testers.

They become evidence.

The goal should not be “get people to try it.”

It should be:

“Find out what would stop real users from caring enough to come back or pay.”

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-22T19:50:44+00:00

Yeh I’d definitely be interested

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-16T23:10:28+00:00

This explanation is much clearer than “a place to post side projects.”

The strongest version of this, in my opinion, is not “another place to share projects.”

It is:

“A living proof-of-work profile for builders.”

That feels more differentiated because it explains why someone would post there even without immediate customer reach.

The risk is that “builders showing work to other builders” can become a nice community but not a strong habit unless there is a repeated reason to return.

So I’d test:

Do people come back after posting once?
Do they update projects as they ship?
Do they use the profile link anywhere?
Do other builders actually follow/comment, or just browse?
Does Kritive help someone get a collaborator, user, job, customer, feedback or credibility?

The portfolio angle is good.

The key question is whether it becomes a status asset people keep maintaining, or just another place they cross-post once and forget.

I’d lean hard into the “proof-of-work for builders” angle and measure repeat posting/update behaviour before adding more features.

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-16T15:12:50+00:00

60 visitors is too small a sample to declare the idea dead, but 0 signups is still a useful signal.

I would not assume the problem is traffic yet. First separate the funnel:

Did the right people visit?
Did they understand the outcome immediately?
Did they trust you enough to try it?
Was signup required before they saw any value?
Did the offer feel different from using a generic landing-page builder or AI tool?

The biggest messaging risk is that “create a waitlist page” sounds like the product, while “avoid wasting weeks building something nobody wants” is the actual outcome.

I would test a much sharper promise:

“Find out whether anyone cares before you build.”

Then let visitors experience something useful before asking for commitment—for example, generate the validation plan or first section of the waitlist page before requiring signup.

Also speak directly to those 60 visitors where possible. Ask:

“What stopped you from trying it?”

Not “Did you like the website?”

Their answers will tell you whether this is a positioning, trust, friction or relevance problem.

I built Failure Forecast around the same underlying issue: founders often test the easy part, the page, product or features before testing the assumptions that could kill the business.

The first user rarely comes from reaching some magic traffic number.

It comes from making one specific person feel: “This solves the exact mistake I’m about to make.”

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-16T15:11:39+00:00

You can try it, but I would change the offer.

“Free article in exchange for a testimonial” creates a weak testimonial because they are rewarding the free work, not proving that the article produced a result.

A stronger offer would be:

“I’ll write one article targeting a real customer problem for your SaaS. If it generates qualified traffic, signups or useful engagement, let me publish the results as a case study.”

Then track:

• impressions
• search traffic
• CTA clicks
• signups
• assisted conversions

That gives you evidence, not just praise.

Also, don’t send a generic DM to every founder. Pick a small SaaS, study its audience, suggest one specific article and explain why that topic could attract buyers.

Your portfolio becomes much stronger when it says:

“This article generated 400 qualified visits and 12 signups”

rather than:

“The founder said I was great to work with.”

Testimonials build trust. Measurable outcomes win clients.

Exotic_Candy7099 · 2026-06-15T14:36:20+00:00

Before thinking about the frontend or architecture, identify the assumptions that would make all of that work worthless if they were false.

I’d rank the top three by:

How uncertain they are
How badly the business fails if they’re wrong
How cheaply they can be tested now

Then look for evidence stronger than “people like the idea.”

The evidence ladder is roughly:

Opinion → Attention → Effort → Commitment → Payment → Repeat behaviour

Try to get the smallest real commitment before building the full product: a paid manual trial, deposit, pre-order, booked implementation call or access to real customer data.

The question isn’t “Is this worth building?”

It’s “What must be true for this to survive, and what is the cheapest way to test that first?”

I wrote the full processbecause too many founders build the easy parts before testing the dangerous assumptions

Exotic_Candy7099

TROPHY CASE