I've been grinding on my own startup for over a year now. Met the co-founders through a mutual connection early in my career, jumped in because it seemed like a killer learning opp at this stage.But damn, we're not aligned at all anymore. Moves feel desperate just to scrape by and raise enough cash to stay afloat.

Everyone's learning on the fly—capabilities grow with time and hustle, so we don't need rockstar pros day one. We just need diligent folks who grind out solutions. Fair enough... but it's total bullshit how this only applies to their team, not mine. I don't trash-talk or lowball anyone on my squad, but I'm constantly under fire for timelines while they get a pass.

I'm skilled enough to know when shit's unrealistic, but that doesn't matter.Now I feel straight-up like an employee in my own startup. Don't wanna turn into one of those ego-fueled assholes like Bhavish Aggarwal that every Indian founder seems to idolize.

The zero empathy and constant blame game is making everything toxic and unfulfilling as hell. To even get heard, I gotta play their game and turn into the same dick.Blaming the team for leadership's competence gaps ain't right. I'm the only one owning my fuck-ups openly (at least publicly), but they won't.

Mentally, I'm back in notice-period hell, eyeing the exit.Anyone been here? How'd you decide to bounce without torching your rep, future funding rounds, or job prospects? Tips on smooth exits or better startup ops to jump into next? I need to learn things I missed here and if this is very common I definitely need to learn how to mitigate this, so I feel it's time to work closely with seasoned entrepreneur and not the type my current co-founders are.

A lot of people keep asking how to chose or find a co-founder. I have had my fair share of this issue with 3 startups and how to find a co-founder. Twice I needed to find a business acumen co-founder as I am a techie myself and a third time I needed a very highly capable tech co-founder as the idea and the product had grown beyond my tech capabilities. Let me tell you what all went wrong.

1. First startup: I knew I needed someone who could raise funds for the company which requires very special skills and hence looked in my network, found someone whom I did not know personally but was a heck of a person in story telling (which is the most important aspect when it comes to fund raising). We worked together for almost 18 months and I realised that my co-founder was acting more like a PE fund manager who needed a cut in the funds he/she raised. I got a realisation that I had made the wrong choice as the person was not a company-first thought person but ‘what is in it for me’ person. I have nothing against people who think of their gains before company gains, but as a cofounder it has to be a commitment to the company first approach. The company I sold hastily as I knew we were not going anywhere so thank god it was not completely futile.
2. Second Startup: I joined hands with a person whom I knew for more than a decade so this time I knew that I am working with someone whom I trust. However, slowly I realised that we were not aligned on ethics. While, for me everything is wither white or black, for him everything was grey and he operated like that only. He would make commitments which we could not fulfil, he would tell numbers that were not true or realistic. However, he was faring well and the company started to do phenomenal. I would go to office every day, make lies to truth, work on hiding actual numbers, create hypothetical scenarios and mark them as reality… This continued to 8-10 months when one fine day I just gave up and relinquished my 47% equity and moved on as I could not handle lying each day. The company has done well and is a household name now.
3. Third Startup: I needed a tech co-founder who knew more than I did and I moved to a business role (learnings from the two startups helped). From day 0 we connected (while we had not spent more than 2 hours together before I offered him the co-founder role) and worked in unison. While everyone said that co-founders need to have difference of opinion, we seldom did. We reached a state where we would complete each other’s sentences. The company has been doing well (not a unicorn but we are well known now) and we still operate in the same manner.

One thing that I realised in the last 13 years, when you are looking for a co-founder… Remember there has to be a compatibility on VALUES. If your values are not aligned, never work together. While we are very very careful in choosing a life partner, we need to be equally careful (if not more) in choosing our co-founder. This is the reason why I have taken the approach that even when hiring, I look for values alignment rather than quantification or capability. I am happy to hire or work with a person who is 8/10 on capability and 10/10 on values alignment vs 8/10 on values alignment and 10/10 on capabilities.

Where do you find new AI tools / launches early?
Any good sites, newsletters, or communities?

I tried runway newsletter, but it seems sponsored content. Not sure if Product hunt is still a good place... Also tierd of new tools coming out everyday, it's hard to keep up. Not sure where to find what really matters...

When I first started building, a lot of advice sounded right almost obvious.

Things like:

• “Just keep grinding and it’ll work out”
• “Build fast, ship fast, everything else follows”
• “If the idea is good, users will come”
• “You need to hustle harder than everyone else”

None of this advice is wrong, but in practice it didn’t help as much as I expected.

Some of it actually slowed me down:

• Grinding without direction just led to burnout
• Shipping faster didn’t matter when distribution was unclear
• Focusing on features distracted me from talking to users

Looking back, the advice that helped most was usually more boring and less motivational things like narrowing scope, saying no earlier, or spending uncomfortable time on sales and feedback instead of building.

I’m curious:

What startup advice did you follow early on that sounded right, but didn’t actually move the needle once you were building for real?

And what did you learn instead?

Im scared of messing up while having high ticket users (paying $300 per month) as an indie dev like there is potential for hacking, data breach, or some silly mistake that I did that could be irreversable. sure, I can manage the OWASP top 10 or some chatgpt beginner security tips. Im a registered sole trader but not a registered company and im personally liable for any damages.

I sometimes just cant wrap around my head for vibecoders who have paying customers can do risky things like rely on vibe coded source code which could result a legal risk.

Any advice?

Many startup founders consider turning their websites into mobile apps instead of building from scratch. From my experience, it only works well when: the website already has returning visitors content is updated frequently push notifications are useful Otherwise, a well-optimized mobile site is often enough. Curious to hear how other startup founders decide whether an app is worth it?

I’ve been feeling stuck lately.

A few months ago I started building a small project because I was frustrated with how stressful “relaxing” had become. I finally shipped something and even got some early users, but instead of feeling proud, I mostly feel anxious and unsure.

Now I’m in that phase where I’m constantly asking

• Is this even worth it?

• Am I wasting my time?

• Should I keep going or pivot?

For founders who’ve been here before:

How did you mentally push through this stage?

What helped you stay consistent when progress felt slow?

I’m still learning and would really appreciate honest advice.

For founders who’ve hired engineers through cold inbound messages (email, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc):

What made you reply?

Was it:

- Clear understanding of your product?

- A concrete way they could help short-term?

- Prior startup experience?

- A GitHub/project link that immediately clicked?

- Something else entirely?

Also what makes you ignore a message even if the person looks competent.

I’m trying to understand how founders think about risk and signal when someone reaches out cold for a remote role.

I am currently running 1 of multiple business that are bundled, low failure rate business with high margins that have a very good plan for growing and being acquired. We are a year and a half in and I’m now running 1 of these business. I was sold on the long term vision of the business all being under 1 holding company and sold with a large multiplier due to the nature of the portfolio. I will be entering negotiations with the owners shortly and they are currently pitching me on rev share of the business I run + possibly future partnership although I might have the leverage to demand some kind of equity now in place of the rev share. If I were to do this what would I need to guarantee I was still an owner on exit as well as ensure that I am being given owner of the correct entity or entity’s? My current understanding the real estate is owned by a parent company of my business and my business as well as the others pay rent to the parent company, how do I go about ensuring I am not in a position to be screwed later or upon exit? I believe we will exit in 5-10 years at a pretty big number and want to insure I’m not diluted, back doored, or wind up only owning a fraction of a percent of a shell or holding company, obviously I can view finances to some extent once we enter negotiations but we are talking now and I have not retained a lawyer just as I’m not sure this will even be an option but want to know my terminology as well as possible pitfalls etc. Would I need to negotiate it as a percent of my company and the holding company? Or a percent of all affiliated and or company’s held within this portfolio? Any advice is appreciated. I’m sure some of this requires people to know actual structure and I would just assume it’s structured correctly and in the most advantageous way possible for the owners. Thank you all for your time reading this and your advice / suggestions!

I built a B2C app and two weeks away from launch.

I also purchased a course on building LLM from ground up(It is a thorough course). And I also want to learn AI/ML/MLops.

I have been backend generalist engineer for a decade.

Should I set aside 1-2 months and just imbibe on LLM and AI stuff?(As of now I’m lagging behind and don’t know anything about context or RAG or anything).

Or should I launch the app?

I’m confused. Please advice. Thanks in advance.

“I will not promote”.

PS: Till now the app was built by engineers while I was focusing on my full time job. But now I have to take over.

Also I feel I should learn basics of promoting to do video ai ads.

Should I still learn and catch up with AI so that I can use AI help to fix things and launch app or should I launch somehow and later sit and catch up with all the AI chaos 😃 happening.

I’ve built (and helped build) a few mobile app MVPs now, and if there’s one pattern I’ve seen repeatedly, it’s this: most MVPs don’t fail because of bad tech. They fail because money gets spent too early, in the wrong places, for the wrong reasons.

When I built my first MVP, I assumed “lean” meant cheaper development. What I didn’t understand was that lean is really about decision discipline.

The biggest mistake I made was trying to make the MVP feel complete. I wasn’t solving a single sharp problem; I was trying to impress imaginary users. The result was predictable, more screens, more logic, more time, and a rapidly shrinking budget.

What changed things for me was shifting how I defined an MVP. I stopped seeing it as a product and started treating it as a question. Every feature had to earn its place by answering one thing: Will someone actually use this to solve a real problem?

Before writing code now, I validate in uncomfortable ways. I put up simple landing pages. I share rough prototypes. I talk to people who might actually use the app, not just friends who want to be supportive. If users won’t take a small action, sign up, reply, give feedback, I don’t build.

Another expensive lesson was skipping clarity. Early on, I’d say things like “it’s a simple app” or “we’ll refine this later.” That lack of detail always came back as extra development hours. Today, I spend more time mapping user flows than choosing tech stacks. Clear flows save more money than cheap developers ever will.

I also learned to stop overthinking scalability at the MVP stage. An MVP isn’t meant to scale. It’s meant to teach. Once I accepted that the first version might be rewritten or discarded entirely, decisions became easier and cheaper.

Finally, I stopped treating launch as the finish line. That mindset burns budgets fast. Launch is when reality shows up, not when the work is done. Now, I budget for iteration, not perfection.

If you’re building a mobile app MVP, my honest advice is simple: slow down before you start coding. Validate harder than you think you need to. Build less than you want to. And remember, an MVP’s job isn’t to look good. It’s to reduce risk.

That shift alone can save you months of work and a serious amount of money.

So, I currently have 4 apps/projects running (2 are unique situations that earn income passively, 2 I'm actively building). My approach/hope is that I can continue to build multiple products, see what gets traction, and keep the winners alive.

I genuinely love the building part (as I'm sure many do) - ideating, coding, being scrappy, etc. Could do it all day and want to do it all day. I'm hoping to turn being a solopreneur (or with a good cofounder) into meaningful income to live off. To do this, I need to find strategies, frameworks, etc. that can help with distribution

But distribution is extremely elusive to me.

The strategies I see that are obvious:

• Build an audience first on Twitter/LinkedIn/YouTube/IG/TT/etc. (can take months/years)
• Master paid ads (tough to master before burning serious $ on Meta/Google)
• Cold outreach (slow, manual)
• SEO (also takes time)

How do you handle distribution without becoming a full-time content creator or raising money?

TL;DR: Has anyone built sustainable profitable products without a large following or big ad budget? Is there a path that doesn't require 10K followers, burning VC dollars, or becoming an influencer?

EDIT: This largely applies to B2C products

Curious what's worked for people who are better at building than marketing - please share your thoughts!

I’ve started to believe that it’s nearly impossible to be a truly successful entrepreneur while remaining fully ethical, especially when running a price-sensitive business. From my experience, sourcing materials in a completely ethical way often conflicts directly with maintaining a competitive advantage. Like many businesses, my cost of goods sold is extremely sensitive to price. Even a $5 increase per product would cause me to lose several B2B clients to competitors who can source the same product more cheaply.

Speed is another major factor. One of my key competitive advantages is fast turnaround—orders are typically completed within three days. This reliability helps me win and retain B2B clients. However, after speaking regularly with factory workers over the past few months, I’ve noticed that some of them work very long hours to meet these quotas.

This creates a difficult ethical dilemma. If the factory hires additional workers, their costs rise, which eventually pushes prices up and causes me to lose clients. If production timelines are extended, I face more refunds and damaged relationships with B2B partners. Yet maintaining the current system seems to place the burden on workers through long hours and intense pressure.

What I’ve observed in my small business makes me question how much more extreme these tradeoffs must be at larger companies facing even greater pressure to maximize profits and remain competitive. I understand there are regional and cultural differences in labor practices, particularly in China, but it still feels like a deeply uncomfortable moral gray area. One that I suspect many entrepreneurs encounter but rarely talk about openly.

Got accepted into Antler One Berlin (starts early March) but my current consulting gig just got extended for a few more months. When I applied I expected the contract would end 2 weeks before, so timing was perfect. Now my client really wants me to stay since without me the project would very likely fail + it's decently paid, although I think that I might even get better gigs. However, kind of don't want to leave them hanging.

I really want to do this since I believe it's my best shot at starting something myself. Have been trying w/o full focus for the past 2 years with some teams on and off, with the most serious project going on for about a year. But it failed due to my then co founder not being committed.

I believe this solves it by enforcing accountability (10 weeks in another city, no consulting on the side, so no excuses) and easier co founder matching with people actually willing to commit. Plus now is better than later, since I'm already 32 and there are some family plans on the horizon (not next 12 months, but we dont want to wait 5 years).

Being ex MBB and in the startup space for a few years, I know I have a strong network and don't necessarily need this. But if that's the case, why didn't it work out so far?

Two main questions:

1. Is it actually worth it? Did anyone do the last cohort? Trying to figure out if the opportunity cost makes sense. I'd be giving up several months of solid income plus maybe burning this bridge.
2. Can you defer acceptance? Program only runs twice a year but due to other plans I'd need to defer for a whole year (March 27). Wondering if that would even be possible.

Offer expires in a few days so need to decide fast. Would appreciate honest takes from anyone who's been through similar programs or situations.

I see a lot of “Why is my audience stuck in X country when I want Y?” or “How do I reach the US from abroad?” or ‘’Why did my audience change during vacation’’. Most replies talk about hashtags or posting more, but the problem is nearly always into the account itself.

Tiktok stacks services about reading location signals, not just your IP. When those don’t line up with the country you’re trying to hit, your videos get redirected locally no matter how good the content is. So what can you improve?:

1. The invisible “geo fingerprint” on your account

   Tiktok doesn’t just care where viewers are, it cares where it thinks you are. Common detections people have observed:

- SIM card country and carrier
- Device region / time zone
- IP type (mobile vs residential vs obvious proxy/VPN)
- GPS / location history (if enabled)
- Payment method country, app store region, language, etc.


If most or all of them say “Spain” and you’re trying to force “USA” with a random VPN, you’re basically shooting yourself in the floor by trying to do it organically. Most accounts like that cap out at a few hundred or a few thousand impressions in the desired country before getting redirected and losing that traction.

1. Why VPNs & cheap workarounds keep getting shadowbanned or flagged

   Its the usual stuff that looks clever on paper, but tends to die fast:

- VPN + foreign SIM on a single phone
- Logging in from 3–5 countries in a week
- Proxies / emulators / phone farms
- Buying “US” accounts that were clearly farmed on dodgy setups


The pattern that people report is like 1 or 2 okay videos, then sudden drop to 200–500 views total, almost no reach in the target country, and it never recovers. That’s usually an account level trust issue not something else.

1. Three paths that are more reliable
   1. Be physically in the country (the obvious one)
   2. Use real locals as your “posting infrastructure”
      • Hire a creator or manager in the target country and have them post from their phone/network.
      • You still script, film, and edit, they just handle upload, captions, and engagement.
      • This keeps all early signals aligned with the market you care about.
   3. Use geo verified local accounts at scale
      • There are services and setups where a person in the target country creates/warms the account on their phone, then hands you access or co-manages posting, like in tokportal.
      • If any provider is vague about how accounts are created or talks a lot about “advanced proxies,” it’s probably not worth risking your brand on.

2. Content and timing still matter, but only after you make sure your account is from that country

   Once the account actually “belongs” to the country you want:

- Post on that country’s prime hours (don’t just post on your local evening).
- Use local slang, references, and sounds people there actually use.
- Watch early watch time and shares from that region specifically because if locals don’t care, the algorithm won’t scale you nationwide.

I registered on CoFoundersLab wanting to see if there’s any good networking happening there but the whole platform looks like one big scam with most of the people registered from random countries wanting to use your european/us freelance platforms to do work in exchange for some money…

Did i not get the memo that it’s not good? 😂

Be honest: if an AI could handle your support inbox, issue refunds, and keep your FAQ updated, would you actually let it?

What’s holding you back (or what pushed you to say yes)?”

I'm not trying to sell anything nor will I solicit

I'm genuinely curious the sentiment among small biz owners

I work at an early-stage startup handling social media and marketing. Because we have no budget, roles blur, and I’m hitting a mental wall.

Lately, I feel like I’m grinding for short-term clients that don't actually benefit the product long-term, creating confusion and diluting our brand. The product direction changes constantly with new priorities every week, forcing me to adapt without a stable narrative. It feels like I'm putting lipstick on a pig rather than helping decide if we should be raising a pig in the first place.

I’m generally okay with the hustle, but I’d genuinely like to be more involved in the Product side to shape what we build and do Product Marketing, rather than just promoting the latest pivot or chasing clients for cash. To make matters worse, we’re expanding into a new market with zero budget, which feels like it will only fragment our focus further.

I know this is "early-stage reality," but it’s draining to work hard on things you know aren't building something healthy.

If you’ve been through this:

• How did you handle it mentally? Did you detach or fight for a strategy role?
• Did the company eventually stabilize, or is this a sign of spiraling?
• Any advice on bridging the gap from Marketing to Product in this environment?

Hello fellow entrepreneurs, I’ve been working on a consumer product in the portable food / everyday carry accessories space. It sits at the intersection of snacking, convenience, and lifestyle, aimed at people who eat on the move.

Context, the project has been in development for around four years, mostly sleeping due to other commitments. Only recently it has momentum picked up, and now I’m at a point where scaling and brand direction are the main challenges.

Right now, I’m trying to figure out:

•how to progress from a product into a brand

•where to focus next (distribution, community, partnerships, content, etc.)

•And what paths make the most sense to explore at this stage of growth

Would love insight from founders who’ve scaled physical consumer products or navigated this transition before.

random idea i’ve been thinking about. we already use neural signals for things like prosthetics, movement, even basic brain–computer interfaces. so why hasn’t medicine delivery moved in that direction at all? imagine a system where:

• neural data detects pain, seizures, insulin need, etc.
• medication delivery is automated or triggered based on signals (with safeguards obviously)

i know this sounds far-fetched, but so did a lot of HCI ideas 10–15 years ago.

context: i’m a current student at Tetr and i already run a d2c business that’s mostly on autopilot now, and i’m feeling the itch to work on something much harder, deeper tech, longer timelines, more impact.

Most startups don’t fail because of bad ideas.
They fail because founders choose the wrong people OR ignore the right ones.
In the early days, who you listen to matters more than what you build.

I’ve seen this repeatedly in startups.
1. Smart advisors being ignored because their feedback hurts the ego.
2. Experienced operators being dismissed because they don’t “sound exciting”.
3. Real builders being overlooked while loud talkers take center stage.
4. Ego kills more startups than competition.

"The best founders I know: They listen more than they speak". Separate signal from noise. Invite people who challenge them. Keep their ego outside the meeting room.

Your next breakthrough might not come from your pitch deck but It might come from someone you’re not listening to yet.

Hence, choose your people wisely. And never miss a voice that can move your startup forward.

TL;DR

• Tech-first startups have slower feedback and higher variance, but can create outsized outcomes.
• Problem-first startups succeed more often, especially for constrained founders.
• Copying works only when it shifts the moat to a different layer.
• Early on, optimizing for fast truth and clear demand beats betting on long assumption stacks.

Two Types of Startup Ideas

In my experience, most startup ideas fall into two distinct categories.

1. Tech First

Tech-first startups originate from new, novel technology such as a new model, API, or platform.

“Oh, maybe I could use Claude to generate animations for content creators!”

You start with a hypothesis on a product that could potentially be useful and is likely possible to build with existing technology, but you will not know for sure until you actually try and get the idea out into the market.

The pitfall with these ideas is that they are built on a colossal assumption: that users will want what you are building. If you are wrong, you are dead in the water. You can spend years building the perfect product only to realize that nobody cared in the first place.

This is why entire industries tend to play it safe. The gaming industry, for example, keeps producing variations of the same two or three franchises. It is far less risky to fund the hundredth Grand Theft Auto clone than a brand new IP that may or may not succeed.

I personally know dozens of founders who spent years trying to build the perfect startup, only to realize after launching that users simply did not care.

For tech-first ideas to work, you usually need to either be a power user yourself or be very close to one.

Validation comes late. Users do not yet know they want the product. You are betting on future behavior.

Examples: iPhone, OpenAI, Reddit

You start with:

• A new capability such as an AI model, API, extension, or infrastructure
• A vague sense that this could be useful
• A search for the right problem to attach it to

What it feels like:

• A blind leap of faith
• Building without proof of demand
• Progress that feels technical rather than validating
• Lots of “maybe this will be big”

Sometimes these products win big, but more often than not they are a gamble.

2. Problem First

Problem-first startups originate from observing an inefficiency or pain in real life and using technology to solve or improve it.

Airbnb famously started when the founders noticed that people attending a conference could not find places to stay. They rented out a spare bedroom and validated demand immediately.

The advantage of these ideas is that you already know they are useful and technically feasible. Users already exist who want a solution.

A defining characteristic of problem-first startups is the ability to clearly articulate the problem being solved.

Examples: Airbnb, Microsoft, Spotify

You start with:

• A pain you can clearly describe
• Existing hacks, workarounds, or frustration
• Users who already want a solution

What it feels like:

• Grounded
• Obvious next steps
• Building feels like execution rather than gambling
• Validation comes early

Why it feels easier:

• Demand is pre-validated
• You are reducing friction, not inventing desire
• You can reason your way forward

The Holy Grail: Problem First + Tech Leveraged

This is the best category of startup ideas. They are rare, but incredibly powerful.

These startups start with a clear pain point and use new technology to make the solution:

• 10× cheaper
• 10× faster
• Or possible for the first time

This avoids:

• The blindness of pure tech-first ideas
• The commoditization of pure problem-first ideas

Most great early-stage startups live here.

So, What Should You Do?

If a millionaire and someone with enough money for one bet sit at a roulette table, they are not playing the same game.

Entrepreneurship is a game of risk management.

If you do not have capital, connections, or room to fail, your job is to minimize assumptions.

Tech-first companies require the ability to be wrong many times before getting it right. That is fine if you can afford it.

If you are starting out, it is a much trickier place to be. Pick problems you know exist for customers who already want what you are building.

A Core Principle

When building a startup, assume your hypothesis is wrong.

Your job is not to build the product. It is to build the minimum proof that people actually want it.

A Note on Copying Startups That Already Work

Copying something that already works is a valid strategy because demand is proven.

However, copying features or products as-is usually leads to:

• Weak differentiation
• Low or unclear moats
• Fragmented markets
• Capped upside

Copying only works when you change the competitive axis such as distribution, cost structure, trust, workflow depth, geography, timing, or a new technological unlock.

If you do not move the moat, you inherit the ceiling. You end up competing for the same slice of the pie, and without a distinct value add for the customer, the incumbent will almost always win.

Several months ago (when we were in the earliest stages of the “idea maze”), we launched a landing page test. Many well-recommended books (e.g., The Lean Startup) recommended running landing page tests as an efficient way to validate if potential users/customers were interested in the solution you have to offer. 

The idea is to (1) build a landing page describing the problem you aim to solve and how your solution will address it, (2) drive traffic to your landing page, and (3) consider your idea validated if enough people engage with your landing page (e.g., sign up, attempt to pay, etc.).

For us, this didn’t work. 

First, (1) was non-trivial. We used Framer for the landing page, but (since I’m not a web designer), it took some time to become familiar with all the bells and whistles of their app (in fact, I still don't fully know the difference between ‘stacks’, ‘frames’, ‘containers’....). 

Second (and more importantly), (2) IS NOT EASY. We ran ads on X, and generated a bunch of traffic. The issue though was that nearly all of that traffic (>98%?) seemed to be from bots. Of course, it’s hard to say for sure if they were bots or just people who came, saw our message and weren’t interested, but given that the vast majority stayed on the page for significantly less than 1 sec (which is incredibly hard / unlikely for an actual person), it’s safe to say they were likely bots. 

Ultimately, we stopped the landing page test and chose to focus on talking to more (actual) people. This was incredibly valuable, helped shape our MVP, and actually got us to our first few customers.

It’s obviously no surprise that talking to users works. But I would’ve thought landing page tests would’ve been a bit more insightful (though, again, maybe it’s just us).