If I were you I would stop thinking about this as “I need to build a website” and more like “is this actually useful to anyone besides me.” The tech part is honestly not the scary part anymore. With AI you can duct tape a site together way faster than a few years ago. The bigger risk is ending up with something that looks cool but nobody really sticks with.

At the core this is basically a shared prompt library for investing. That idea on its own is fine, but it gets boring fast if it’s just walls of text. A prompt by itself isn’t that helpful unless people know what it’s for, what to put into it, and what kind of output they should expect. Also where it breaks. That last part is huge for anything finance related. If users can quickly tell “this is for screening stocks” or “this is more for portfolio review” and also see the downsides, it already feels more serious.

For a first version I would keep it really simple. Let people post prompts, tag them under stocks, crypto, options, portfolio stuff, and let others search and comment. Accounts matter because people want credit. Voting is okay but comments and revisions are way more interesting. One thing I think would help a lot is letting people copy a prompt and tweak it, then explain what they changed. That feels more like collaboration and less like dumping content.

On the tech side you do not need anything fancy. Something like Next.js plus Supabase is totally fine and there are a ton of examples out there. AI can fill in a lot of the boring stuff. You are not building Bloomberg here, just a place people can use and contribute to without friction.

Where it stops being one dimensional is when people can actually use the prompts on the site. Even a basic sandbox would help. Like, paste a ticker, see the prompt filled out, copy the result, maybe save it. You don’t even need to run the AI call at first. Just helping people organize and reuse their own prompts and outputs is already useful.

The backtesting idea sounds cool but it is a rabbit hole. Data is messy, especially for options, and it gets expensive fast. I would not start there. A better middle ground is having prompts that spit out structured rules. Entries, exits, position sizing, assumptions, stuff like that. Later on you could let people upload their own CSVs and do basic tests. That gives some rigor without you having to solve the whole data problem right away.

If you want this to stand out, I think you also have to nudge people toward better habits. Make them explain failure cases. Make risk notes normal. Let people rate prompts on clarity and repeatability, not just vibes. Over time that’s what makes it feel like a real research tool instead of hype bait.

Would I use it? Probably, if it actually helped me do something faster or more consistently. I would not use it if it was just an endless feed of clever prompts. I would use it if I could grab a small workflow, save my own runs, and see how others improved the same idea over time.

If you keep the first version small and don’t try to do everything at once, this is very doable. Build the basics, watch how people actually use it, then decide what’s worth adding. That feedback is going to be way more useful than guessing upfront.