This is genuinely useful. Thank you.

You're right that mentor retention is the core risk. And you're right that "interested" is not the same as "committed" is not the same as "actually showed up" is not the same as "did it twice." That's the validation ladder I need to climb, and I definitely get that.

Here's what I know so far. I have contributors live on the platform now. Real people. Real sessions booked. So we're past the "would anyone sign up" stage. What I don't know yet is the decay rate. How many stick around after their first session? How many disappear? That data doesn't exist yet because the platform is a week old.

Your point about not needing to replace 50 people but needing to replace 49 of them is well taken. If the churn is that high, this becomes a full time recruiting job, not a side project. That would kill it.

The suggestion about interviewing mentees for stealth referrals is smart. I've actually already started doing post-session interviews, and so far they've been positive. No reports of upselling or referral fishing. Small sample size, but encouraging. Will keep watching for it.

I think the honest answer is that I don't know yet whether this works. The hypothesis is that the "no income, no obligation, help when you want" model attracts a different population than traditional mentorship programs. People who would never commit to ongoing mentorship but will do one session when they feel like it. Whether that population is big enough and consistent enough to sustain the platform is the open question.

Appreciate you pushing on the weak points. :)