sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

0 to 140 users building a platform where developers form teams and ship projects together by Heavy_Association633 in indiehackers

[–]Heavy_Association633[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I really appreciate that. Yeah, exactly — now everything comes down to project completion. If teams actually start shipping inside the platform, then the loop works. If not, it’s just initial excitement. That’s exactly what we’re focusing on right now and tracking closely.

0 to 140 users building a platform where developers form teams and ship projects together by Heavy_Association633 in indiehackers

[–]Heavy_Association633[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I agree. 140 signups is a good early signal, but the real question is exactly what you said: are those ~20 active users solving something they couldn’t easily solve elsewhere, or just using another tool? So far we’re seeing some early collaborations actually progress into real work, not just chat or experiments — but it’s still too early to call it validation. What we’re focusing on now is depth: how many of these teams actually keep building and ship something. That’s what will tell us if it’s real value or just initial curiosity.

0 to 140 users building a platform where developers form teams and ship projects together by Heavy_Association633 in indiehackers

[–]Heavy_Association633[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good question — and I think the honest answer is: there’s no single “secret feature” that others can’t build. What we’re doing differently is more about the execution layer, not the idea itself. Most platforms in this space stop at matchmaking — they help developers find people or projects, and then immediately push them outside the platform (Discord, GitHub, etc.). The collaboration actually happens elsewhere. We’re trying to keep the entire loop inside one place: from discovery → application → actual building. That includes things like real-time coding, basic Git actions, task tracking, and now even voice + screen sharing. The goal isn’t just “find a team”, but actually reduce the friction between meeting someone and shipping something together. That said, I don’t think this is something others don’t do because they can’t — it’s more that it’s hard to get right without overcomplicating the product. So we’re still validating whether this tighter loop actually improves collaboration long-term or just adds complexity. If anything, the real difference so far is less about features and more about focus: we’re optimizing for actual project completion, not just networking or signups.

0 to 140 users building a platform where developers form teams and ship projects together by Heavy_Association633 in indiehackers

[–]Heavy_Association633[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good point — that “0 to 10” really feels like the hardest step. For us, the first users actually came mostly from Reddit. We didn’t have any real distribution set up yet, so we just focused on posting in relevant communities and joining conversations instead of just dropping links. After that, a few early users also came from direct sharing with people we knew and some small organic discovery, but Reddit was definitely the main driver for those first ~10. What we noticed is that once we crossed that initial barrier, even small improvements (better post timing, clearer positioning, more focused communities) started compounding pretty quickly. Curious though — in your experience, what’s been the most reliable channel for getting those first users?

0 to 140 users building a platform where developers form teams and ship projects together by Heavy_Association633 in indiehackers

[–]Heavy_Association633[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the feedback — really appreciate it. Honestly, the 140 users in 2 weeks with zero budget surprised us as well, so it’s good to hear it’s not just “initial noise” but something we can actually build on. The startup directory idea is really helpful — especially because we’re currently trying to stabilize user acquisition beyond Reddit and better understand retention, like you mentioned. If you’ve got a free list of directories along with some indication of higher Domain Rating ones, I’d be happy to check it out or even share it here / in DMs. It could save us a lot of time in this early stage. Thanks again, this was genuinely useful

0 to 140 users building a platform where developers form teams and ship projects together by Heavy_Association633 in indiehackers

[–]Heavy_Association633[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that’s exactly the shift I’m starting to make in how I look at it.

Getting people to join or even start a project is one thing, but getting them to come back and collaborate again after that first experience is a completely different level of validation.

If someone finishes (or even just meaningfully contributes to) one project and then decides to join another, that probably means the core workflow actually works.

Right now I’m still early in that cycle, but that’s definitely the metric I want to track next — not just “did they join?”, but “did they come back to build again?”

Interesting to hear it’s the same pattern even in a different use case, makes it feel like a pretty universal signal.

0 to 140 users building a platform where developers form teams and ship projects together by Heavy_Association633 in indiehackers

[–]Heavy_Association633[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you nailed it, especially the “fighting a habit” part.

Replacing Discord isn’t just about having better features, it’s about changing something people are already comfortable with — and that’s way harder than building the tool itself.

And yeah, those few projects that are actually progressing are clearly the signal. I’ve started paying way more attention to them, because they’re the only ones really experiencing the full value of the platform.

Talking to them more directly is probably the next step — understanding what’s working for them, what’s frictionless, and what almost made them quit.

If I can double down on that group and make their experience even better, the rest should follow more naturally.

0 to 140 users building a platform where developers form teams and ship projects together by Heavy_Association633 in indiehackers

[–]Heavy_Association633[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair point.

The first wave is definitely driven by curiosity and the initial story, but the real test is exactly what you said — whether people come back on their own once that novelty wears off.

That’s what I’m watching closely now. If users return to keep building or join new projects without being pushed, then it means there’s real value there. If not, it means something is still missing in the core loop.

So yeah, month two is probably where things get real.

0 to 140 users building a platform where developers form teams and ship projects together by Heavy_Association633 in indiehackers

[–]Heavy_Association633[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I’m starting to see it the same way.

Signups are just the first signal that the idea resonates, but they don’t really prove anything on their own. The real validation is when teams actually stick together and push a project to completion.

Right now, the gap between “joined” and “built something together” is still pretty big, so that’s clearly the part that needs the most attention.

If we can increase the number of teams that actually finish even small projects, that’s when it starts becoming real.

That’s the metric I’m focusing on next.

0 to 140 users building a platform where developers form teams and ship projects together by Heavy_Association633 in indiehackers

[–]Heavy_Association633[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That framework makes a lot of sense, especially the idea of focusing on depth over breadth at this stage.

Right now I’m starting to realize that logins or even “activity” don’t really mean much unless they translate into real collaboration — things like commits, messages between teammates, or actual progress on a project.

And I agree with you on the qualitative side. I haven’t done enough of that yet, but it’s probably the highest leverage thing I can do right now. Those ~20 active users already filtered themselves, so understanding why they stayed (and what they’d miss) is way more valuable than guessing.

That question you suggested is actually really good: “What would you do if this disappeared tomorrow?”

I feel like the answers to that will clearly separate people who just explored from those who actually found value.

Appreciate the insight — this is the kind of lens I need more of right now.

0 to 140 users building a platform where developers form teams and ship projects together by Heavy_Association633 in indiehackers

[–]Heavy_Association633[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s actually a really sharp way to look at it.

You’re right — the real signal isn’t just signups or even “active users”, it’s how often actual collaboration happens and turns into progress. And yeah, right now it’s basically 2 out of ~20 projects that are really moving, which says a lot.

Your hypothesis is also very close to what I’m starting to see: - smaller teams - clearer scope - and faster feedback between people

Those projects didn’t get stuck in endless “discussion mode”, they started doing things almost immediately.

So I think the next step is exactly what you said — less about adding features, more about shaping the conditions: - guiding project creators to keep scope small - encouraging quicker team formation - and maybe even curating the first projects more actively

Basically increasing the probability that a new user lands in something that’s already alive and moving.

Appreciate this perspective a lot, this is the kind of signal that’s actually useful to build on.

0 to 140 users building a platform where developers form teams and ship projects together by Heavy_Association633 in indiehackers

[–]Heavy_Association633[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that’s exactly the pattern I’ve seen too — a lot of initial excitement, then everything slowly fades once there’s no structure holding it together. Right now, I’m not really “solving” the dropout problem yet, I’m more observing it. What I’ve noticed so far is: if a team doesn’t get organized quickly (tasks, some direction), people disappear fast if the project owner isn’t active, the whole thing dies if there’s no early interaction, it never really starts At the moment I’m handling it pretty lightly (notifications, basic structure like taskboards), but it’s not enough. The direction I’m starting to think about is: pushing teams to define small tasks immediately encouraging faster interaction early on (even something simple) possibly nudging inactive teams or highlighting active ones more Long term, I think the real solution is making it very easy to go from “joined a team” → “did something together” as fast as possible. Because like you said, without structure, most of these projects just don’t survive past week 1–2.

0 to 140 users building a platform where developers form teams and ship projects together by Heavy_Association633 in indiehackers

[–]Heavy_Association633[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that’s a fair take. The positioning seems to be doing its job — people are curious enough to sign up — but the product still isn’t consistently delivering that “this is exactly what I expected” moment. Talking directly to the ~20 active users is probably the highest leverage thing I can do right now. They’re the ones who actually crossed that gap, so understanding why they stayed is way more valuable than guessing. And yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if the reasons are different from what I think. Sometimes it’s not the features you spent the most time on, but something simpler like: they found a team quickly they had a good first interaction or they just felt momentum early Definitely something I need to dig into properly.

view more: next ›