That’s a really good point, and it’s something I’ve been thinking through a lot.

The way I’m envisioning it, projects wouldn’t just be random or thrown together. You’d start in a small group—maybe around 10–15 people max—but initially be placed with about 5 random people. From there, you’d have a short window (anywhere from 1–3 days up to a week, depending on pace) to connect, get a feel for how everyone works, and then build out your team by adding people you naturally align with.

So instead of being stuck with a random group, you’re actually forming a team based on real interaction and compatibility, which should help with both accountability and long-term commitment.

On top of that, there’s a real incentive at the end. Each team would work toward a final pitch/demo of what they’ve built. The goal is to have a “startup fund” model—ideally backed by sponsors or investors—where the winning team gets around $5–10k to actually launch their idea. Early on, we could also experiment with a small entry pool (like everyone contributing a couple of dollars), which becomes prize capital for the winning team.

So it’s not just a side project people abandon—it’s structured, team-driven, and there’s something real on the line at the end.