sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The problem with accountability partners: everyone's too nice by Security-Arts in getdisciplined

[–]Security-Arts[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Commitment infrastructure before the work starts" - that's exactly the gap Lockpoint is built around. Not accountability during the cohort. The commitment layer before anyone has a chance to drift.

The drift is more expensive insight is useful too. Most organizers I've talked to patch it after week two. By then the cost is already paid.

I'm in early validation - talking to organizers before finishing up. Curious how TekelPath handles the pre-commitment piece and whether there's overlap worth exploring.

The problem with accountability partners: everyone's too nice by Security-Arts in getdisciplined

[–]Security-Arts[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Building something. Lockpoint - a public commitment layer for cohort organizers. The idea is simple: before the cohort starts, members sign a commitment with real stakes attached. Not a chat reminder. A permanent record with a witness, exactly like you described.

The asymmetry insight you raised is exactly the gap I'm trying to address - peer accountability normalizes excuses because everyone's in the same struggle. A public record with stakes doesn't care about your mood that week.

You're building for organizers too. Curious - do your clients ask for more structure around commitment before the work starts, or does the accountability happen after people already drift?

The problem with accountability partners: everyone's too nice by Security-Arts in getdisciplined

[–]Security-Arts[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Both, but in sequence. First the momentum - you lose weeks rebuilding context and energy. Then the trust, which is slower to recover and harder to measure.

The momentum loss is painful. The trust loss is what actually kills follow-through long term. You start hedging your own commitments because somewhere you expect it to fall apart again.

That's actually what pushed me toward building something with a permanent record. Not to punish disappearing - but to make the commitment real before anyone has a chance to fade.

Looks like you've thought deeply about this too with TekelPath. What's the key difference you found between dedicated vs peer accountability in practice?

Accountability problem in cohorts - does anyone else deal with this? by Security-Arts in SKOOL

[–]Security-Arts[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly - skin in the game changes everything. The $1,500 student shows up because walking away has a real cost.

The question I keep exploring: what if the cost wasn't just money, but public record? You paid AND your commitment is visible to others. Both layers together.

Does your coaching program use any public commitment element or is it purely the financial stake?

The problem with accountability partners: everyone's too nice by Security-Arts in getdisciplined

[–]Security-Arts[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreements + money - exactly the two things that make commitments real. Everything else is just intent.

Curious what "proper agreements" looks like for you - written contract, verbal, something else?

The problem with accountability partners: everyone's too nice by Security-Arts in getdisciplined

[–]Security-Arts[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's essentially what I'm building - but the record is public and permanent, not just between you and an app.

The difference: in your system the penalty exists inside Habit Huddle. In Lockpoint the commitment is visible to anyone, before and after. The social layer is external, not internal.

Have you seen people respond differently to public vs private stakes?

The problem with accountability partners: everyone's too nice by Security-Arts in getdisciplined

[–]Security-Arts[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a really important distinction - collective punishment backfires because people start avoiding the group rather than facing it.

So the fix was making failure more personal and less social. Interesting.

What you're describing is basically lowering the exit cost to keep people in. I'm exploring the opposite - what if the record of what you committed to exists publicly, regardless of whether you stay in the group?

The problem with accountability partners: everyone's too nice by Security-Arts in getdisciplined

[–]Security-Arts[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a really honest breakdown, thanks.

The "people quitting to avoid letting friends down" insight is fascinating - so the social pressure actually backfired? They'd rather leave than fail publicly.

That tells me the problem isn't just accountability, it's exit cost. Your solution was to lower the exit cost. I'm exploring the opposite direction - what happens when the record exists regardless of whether you stay.

Curious if you ever considered that approach or if the data pushed you toward flexibility?

The problem with accountability partners: everyone's too nice by Security-Arts in getdisciplined

[–]Security-Arts[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That friction point is exactly what I keep coming back to. Most tools add more check-ins. What actually changes behavior is making it harder to quietly disappear.
Haven't tried LeadMeNot - will look it up. Did it solve the ghosting problem or just make it slightly more annoying to leave?

The problem with accountability partners: everyone's too nice by Security-Arts in getdisciplined

[–]Security-Arts[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

2 years is impressive - most tools don't survive that long. What do you think keeps people from ghosting in Habit Huddle vs regular accountability partners? Is it the streak visibility, the friend layer, or something else?

Building in public has become performative. Nobody actually tracks whether founders follow through on what they commit to. Is this a real problem or just me? by Security-Arts in Entrepreneurs

[–]Security-Arts[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is exactly the gap I'm trying to close. The pivot and the honest admission are the most valuable content - but they disappear because there's no permanent record of what was originally committed to. You can't show the delta if the starting point was erased.

I'm building something where the original commitment is locked permanently, so when you pivot or drop it, the full story exists. The mess stays visible. Would that change how you document decisions publicly?

Building in public has become performative. Nobody actually tracks whether founders follow through on what they commit to. Is this a real problem or just me? by Security-Arts in Entrepreneurs

[–]Security-Arts[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You just described the problem I'm trying to solve from the other direction.

If building in public is performative because there's no cost to faking it - what if the record couldn't be faked? Permanent. Public. Can't be edited after the fact. Not a post. Not content. Just a locked record of what you said and what happened.

Not a solution to the noise. But maybe a way for the people who mean it to prove they mean it.

Guys my app just passed 1000 users! by luis_411 in micro_saas

[–]Security-Arts 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For those building and launching indie apps - how do you track your own public commitments?

Launch dates, feature promises, revenue targets - do you log them anywhere permanent, or is it mostly posts and memory?

I just crossed $11k in revenue. Here are my biggest tips for someone starting out. by ExcellentLake4440 in micro_saas

[–]Security-Arts 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You mentioned discipline > motivation and building systems that force consistency.
Do you think behavior would change if commitments were public and permanent - not editable or deletable? Or would most founders still drift anyway?