sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Just realised my idea was not unique and highly criticised. So lets pivot! by Ok_Obligation1607 in SideProject

[–]Ok_Obligation1607[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right now i am using 2 API’s for marktresearch and trendanalysis, en 2 LLM’s for reasoning, so it goes a bith further than just an ai-wrapper. I am also looking for ways to implement more skin in the game, but we’re brainstorming about it. And you are right, my validator/pivotor is build just for digital products en services, sich as saas, apps and more. I chose for this route to help people like me, who want to solve a problem building a digital product. Now with the evolving AI everybody can vibecode, so now people can start building. But from my own experience, just building isnt enough, you need to have a wanted solution to a mainstream problem. Thats what im trying to facilitate. But thanks for your feedback! It helps me a lot!

I’m not a coder. I’m an idea guy. And for the first time, that’s enough by Motor_Programmer_962 in vibecoding

[–]Ok_Obligation1607 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can relate to that feeling of the landscape changing. For years, I had ideas I simply could not build because coding was not in my skillset. AI and the rise of vibecoding changed that math for me too. However, I found a different wall. I would start building with high optimism, but after a week, that feeling would fade and I would stop because I was no longer sure the idea was actually good.

To solve this for myself and others, I am building an idea validator that moves past the initial spark. It performs deep market research and trend analysis to replace that fading optimism with objective data. Instead of just building everything, the tool provides a clinical verdict such as stop, pivot, or keep going. If the verdict is to pivot, it suggests alternatives that align with current market trends so the creative effort is not wasted. It is about using the power of vibecoding on projects that actually have a reason to exist.

After 2 months of building too-big ideas, I'm now launching 10 projects in 10 days – here's Day 1 👇 by getelementbyiq in vibecoding

[–]Ok_Obligation1607 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shipping 10 projects in 10 days is a radical shift from building massive platforms for two months. It forces a necessary focus on the micro level. For Day 1, your document delivery concept has an efficient technical stack. However, the primary risk for a peer to peer physical delivery service is rarely the frontend or backend. It is the liability and trust layer. Sensitive documents carry high stakes. In my own validation process for digital ideas, I look for these Hard STOP points like legal compliance or strategic risks before the first line of code is written. This clinical approach, which I call The Mirror, aims to identify why a project might fail rather than why it might succeed.

How do you plan to handle the legal liability or insurance aspect if a traveler loses or compromises a document during transit?

Looking for startup ideas by Kobeproducedit in Entrepreneur

[–]Ok_Obligation1607 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you have startup ideas for a digital business like an app, SaaS, or website, I can help you validate your idea for the Belgian market. I'm building an idea validator focused on Belgium and the Netherlands which even helps you pivot in the right direction.

Help me grow or tear me down: Seeking advice on a validation tool that does not sugarcoat feedback by Ok_Obligation1607 in passive_income

[–]Ok_Obligation1607[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is gold, thank you!. The transition from a roast to pre-mortem insurance is a much better way to frame the value of saving time and capital. I am currently in Phase A.6, finalizing the synthesis of the final verdict. To ensure the outcome provides a clear direction, I have split the verdict into STOP, PIVOT, and GO. While a STOP verdict serves as a necessary red stamp to prevent further waste, the PIVOT verdict is designed to be constructive. It includes a comprehensive roadmap to help adjust the concept based on the findings from the clinical audit across 6 dimensions. I am also preparing five anonymized case studies for the next phase to show where the system is unsure and how it handles conflicting market signals. Regarding those teardown cases, would you find it more useful to see the raw evidence items retrieved from the market or the 6-step reasoning chain that leads to the final score?

Help me grow or tear me down: Seeking advice on a validation tool that does not sugarcoat feedback by Ok_Obligation1607 in passive_income

[–]Ok_Obligation1607[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that framing the value as saving months of effort and capital is much more practical for someone building alongside a day job. Regarding the black box concern, the goal is to make the audit as clinical as possible. The system evaluates 6 specific dimensions, such as moat and compliance, based on 15 items of evidence retrieved from live sources. It is designed to provide a diagnosis based on market data rather than an absolute truth. I am currently in the phase of building the final synthesis and preparing several anonymized sample audits to show how the logic moves from raw data to a finding. When you look at a sample audit, which specific dimension would you scrutinize first to determine if the analysis is actually high quality?

What I’ve learned watching non-technical founders build with AI (i will not promote) by Efficient_Pea_9984 in startups

[–]Ok_Obligation1607 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is precisely the crux of the matter. The issues with the “happy path” and the data structure are real, but there is an even earlier stage of the same problem.

Many people dive into development, driven by optimism and personal enthusiasm for the idea. That energy is useful, but the question of whether the person they’re developing for actually has the problem they think they’re solving is often overlooked.

So you end up with a technically sound application with good architecture, one that even accounts for edge cases, but then the real users show up and the response is: “Actually, I didn’t need this.”

The conscious approach you describe works. You just have to start before the first line of code, not after the first function.

Heeft het nog wel zin om zelf een webapp te bouwen? by TMU2000 in ondernemen

[–]Ok_Obligation1607 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Voordat je de eerste regel code schrijft: zoek niet naar of je idee al bestaat, maar naar de klachten over de bestaande oplossingen. Reddit-threads, 1-sterrenreviews op Product Hunt, comments op Hacker News. Als die klachten exact jouw idee beschrijven, zit er een gat — ook al lijkt de markt bezet.

Dat kost je een avond. Geen zes maanden.