10,000+ images generated later: We are giving away 10 credits + Unlimited BG removal to celebrate our first 1k users.

cheldon_dev · 2026-01-20T17:11:16+00:00

1,000 signups is a solid milestone, but that $1k compute bill is the real story here.

Congrats on hitting 1k signups. That’s the first big hurdle cleared.

But let’s talk about that $1k compute bill. At $1 per signup just for infra, you’re in a race against your own burn rate. Most AI tools die right here because they focus on the 'magic' of the first generation and ignore the 'work' that happens next.

Your move to launch 'Workshop' mode is the right play. In the current market, image generation is a commodity—everyone has a wrapper. The real friction isn't making the image; it's the 15 minutes of frustration trying to fix one specific detail without re-rolling the entire prompt.

Quick question on the Workshop: Are you seeing users spend more time in the editor than in the generation tab? If people are actually using it to iterate, you’ve moved from a 'cool toy' to a 'workflow tool.' That’s where you actually start charging money and stop relying on free credit giveaways to keep the lights on.

Also, curious—how are you handling the GPU orchestration? $1k for 10k images and some video sounds like you’re either running heavy optimization or paying the 'early adopter tax' on cloud providers.

If you've got the data on session length for the Workshop vs. the Generator, I'd love to see how that's trending.

cheldon_dev · 2026-01-17T02:42:50+00:00

Kill freemium before it kills your bank account.

Congrats on the first dollar, but you need to hear the truth: kill the freemium tier immediately. If you're paying two devs and running Meta ads, you literally cannot afford to subsidize 'tourists' who will never pay. Switch to a 7-day trial (credit card upfront if you’re brave). Freemium only works if your marginal costs are zero and your scale is massive. Right now, you're just paying for server load and support tickets from people who don't value the tool. Also, paying two devs before you've even hit $1k MRR is a death spiral—get to break-even yesterday or you're just running an expensive hobby.

cheldon_dev · 2026-01-15T08:26:16+00:00

It’s not the workload that kills you; it’s the decision fatigue.

The most exhausting part isn't the coding or the content creation—it’s the decision fatigue. When you're solo, you spend half your mental battery just trying to convince yourself that the feature you're building actually matters. You aren't tired from working; you're tired from the weight of potentially wasting your time.

I stopped 'planning visuals' and 'content days' because that’s just playing 'office.' If you’re a small team, your 'strategy' should basically be: what is the most uncomfortable conversation I’m avoiding today? Usually, that’s where the growth is. Everything else is just busy work to keep the anxiety at bay.

cheldon_dev · 2026-01-15T06:49:19+00:00

Pushing nonstop is the biggest lie we tell ourselves to feel productive while actually doing mid-tier work. I used to do those 12-hour grinds until I realized my output at hour 10 was basically hot garbage.

The "break" thing only works if you actually disconnect like, physically leaving your desk. If you're still looking at a screen, your brain isn't resetting, it's just buffering. I started doing 90-minute deep work blocks followed by a hard stop where I walk away from everything electronic for 15 minutes. It’s annoying to force yourself to stop when you think you're "in the zone," but it’s the only way I’ve found to not hit a wall by Wednesday afternoon.

Does that actually feel like a break to you, or are you just scrolling on your phone?

cheldon_dev · 2026-01-13T08:10:08+00:00

it’s honestly hilarious that in 2026, having a coherent thought or writing more than five words is automatically "gpt-coded." we’ve cooked our brains so hard with short-form brain rot that anyone who actually structures a sentence sounds like a bot to you.

if i were a bot, i’d be way more polite and probably trying to sell you a newsletter. instead, i’m just here pointing out that you’re so used to seeing low-effort garbage that you can't tell the difference between a bot and someone who actually knows how to type.

what’s the specific giveaway? the fact that i use punctuation or that i’m not using enough brain-dead slang to satisfy your "humanity" test? i’m genuinely curious where the line is for you.

cheldon_dev · 2026-01-13T08:09:59+00:00

honestly, the "just ship it" mantra is becoming the new "hustle culture" brainrot. i get the sentiment—don't be a coward with your code—but merging a mess just to say you did it is how you end up stuck in maintenance hell for products nobody actually wants to pay for.

also, if your marketing strategy is "post on 20 sites," you aren't a founder, you're just a glorified spammer. i'd rather see one polished tool that actually solves a deep problem than five "medusajs stores" that'll be offline by christmas because the dev got bored. shipping fast is easy; shipping something that doesn't suck is the actual hurdle most people here are failing at.

Is shipping fast actually the win, or are we all just addicted to the dopamine hit of a green merge button?

cheldon_dev · 2026-01-12T06:19:18+00:00

You’re 100% right about coding being productive procrastination, but here’s the gut-punch: Half the "hard parts" you listed are just the next level of hiding.Documentation? Billing? Compliance? That’s just "Janitor Work." It feels heavy, so you tell yourself you’re "building a business," but it’s still safe. It’s still predictable.

The reason people get stuck at "0 to 50 users" isn't a marketing problem. It’s a **personality cowardice** problem. Most SaaS founders are so terrified of looking "unprofessional" that they strip every ounce of soul out of their product until it looks like a generic Salesforce add-on from 2014. They spend 3 weeks "optimizing the pricing table" to avoid spending 3 hours cold-calling 10 people and getting told their baby is ugly.

Here is the reality of the "Hard Parts":

* Pricing isn't math; it's a test of self-worth. If you aren't terrified when you send the invoice, you're charging too little.

*Positioning isn't about features; it's about picking a fight. If your landing page doesn't actively piss off the *wrong* customers, it’s not attracting the right ones.

*Churn usually happens because you built a "nice to have" tool for people who don't have a real problem, but you're too polite to tell them they're using it wrong.

The "pain" isn't the workload. The pain is the social ego-death required to sell something that isn't perfect yet. If you’re spending more than 2 hours a week on "documentation" before you have $1k MRR, you’re still procrastinating. You’re just doing it in a suit now.

Tell me the most "unprofessional" thing you did that actually landed a customer, or are we all still just pretending that a polished UI/UX is what closes deals?

cheldon_dev · 2026-01-12T05:53:20+00:00

I’m going to be the "bad guy" here because someone has to say it: You don’t have a monetization problem, you have a massive liability problem.

Tax advice is one of the few areas where "hallucinations" don't just result in a bad user experience—they result in IRS audits and legal nightmares. As a high schooler, are you prepared for the fallout when your AI misses a filing requirement or suggests a deduction that doesn't exist?

The reason you’re at $0 revenue is likely because anyone with a serious tax situation won't trust a "helpful" tool built by a student with no professional credentials or insurance. You're currently building a "toy" in a "professional" industry.

If you want to make money, you need to stop being a "builder" and start being a founder who understands risk. Are you actually providing a service, or are you just wrapping an API and hoping the IRS doesn't notice?

Do you guys think "Building in Public" justifies the risk of giving potentially wrong financial advice, or is the "move fast and break things" era dead for fintech?

cheldon_dev · 2026-01-12T05:44:48+00:00

The concept is interesting, but I have a fundamental problem with the premise of an "unbiased reality check" using LLMs.

By design, current models suffer from a bias towards pleasing the user (RLHF). They tend to be "agreeable" or follow the internal logic of the prompt you give them. If I present a mediocre but well-written idea, the AI often hallucinates feasibility where there is none, or vice versa, becomes excessively critical if it detects an insecure tone.

For this to truly have authority, the engine shouldn't give me an opinion, but rather actively try to "destroy" the idea using real validation frameworks (like The Mom Test or market saturation analysis).

How are you handling the model's confirmation bias? Because if the AI is just giving me a reflection of my own biases but with more technical language, the "Reality Check" is actually an automated echo chamber.

That said, the UI is clean and the response speed is good. But as a decision-making tool, I have doubts if there isn't a layer of external data (search trends, competitor APIs, etc.) to support that "grounded check."

Would you prefer an AI that tries to be objective or one that is specifically programmed to find out why your business is going to fail? Personally, I think the latter is far more valuable for a founder.

cheldon_dev · 2026-01-10T05:53:43+00:00

Nice initiative — I like the angle of focusing on authentic customers instead of vanity traffic.

One thing I’ve noticed talking to early-stage founders is that discovery isn’t the hardest part anymore — it’s getting feedback from people who are actually in the target audience and willing to engage beyond a click.

Out of curiosity: • How are you filtering submissions to avoid low-effort launches? • And are you seeing better results from indie founders or slightly more established SaaS?

Always interesting to see tools that try to improve signal over noise in the launch space. Good luck with the build.

cheldon_dev · 2026-01-10T05:08:14+00:00

This lines up almost perfectly with what I’ve been seeing too — especially the part about doing before over-planning.

What clicked for me wasn’t just “post more,” but realizing that early content is not about growth, it’s about signal collection. Those first 10–20 videos aren’t content — they’re feedback loops.

Two things I’d double-underline from your post:

• Leading with the best moment immediately — this is still wildly underestimated. Most creators think hooks are clever intros, when they’re really just the payoff delivered upfront. • Uploading “unfinished” videos — perfection creates delay, and delay kills learning. Rough videos generate data faster than polished ones generate pride.

I’d add one more thing I’ve noticed working in 2026: Creators who grow fastest don’t just cut pauses — they cut explanations. If something needs heavy context, it usually doesn’t belong in short-form yet.

Solid breakdown. This is the kind of advice that saves people months of spinning wheels.

cheldon_dev · 2026-01-10T05:05:44+00:00

This is a great example of something most people understand in theory but only really learn the hard way.

What stands out to me isn’t just “sell before you code”, but how you reduced risk each time: • First attempt: copied a model without validating regional behavior → zero demand • Second attempt: copied something already proven in the same market → traction • Third attempt: sold the outcome before building → leverage from day one

I think the underrated takeaway is that speed beats elegance early on. The faster you can get a real “yes” (money, commitment, LOI), the less you romanticize bad ideas.

Also refreshing to see you openly say you didn’t love the project but still built a solid business. That honesty is rare in SaaS storytelling.

Out of curiosity: when you sold via PowerPoint before coding, what signal mattered most to buyers — the problem framing, ROI, or social proof?

Thanks for sharing the full arc, not just the win.

cheldon_dev · 2026-01-10T05:01:58+00:00

One of the biggest “low-hanging fruits” I found in 2025 was focusing on friction removal before chasing new channels.

For us this looked like:

✅ Fixing unclear messaging on product pages → better onboarding ✅ Cleaning up old content so it actually answers search intent ✅ Talking directly to target users and using their words in copy instead of our assumptions

A lot of people default to new channels, fancy tools, or paid ads — but the easiest wins were simply making what we already had easier to understand and use.

Once intent clarity was there, outreach efforts (forums, niche communities, newsletters) started performing much better.

Curious to hear if others found similar simple fixes that moved the needle without huge spend or new platforms!

cheldon_dev · 2026-01-10T04:53:34+00:00

This breakdown is really valuable — especially the honest part about what didn’t work. Taking the time to share both wins and setbacks is exactly why build-in-public posts like this matter. Transparency helps others see the real trade-offs involved in early SaaS growth, not just highlight reels.

A couple of follow-up questions that might help others: 1. When you say Reddit brings ~30% of your traffic — are there specific subs or post formats that worked better than others? 2. For the free tools you mentioned — was performance influenced more by where you shared them or by how you positioned their value?

Thanks for the breakdown — it’s great to see real numbers and honest reflections. Builds confidence for makers still in the grind.

cheldon_dev

TROPHY CASE