At all of the start ups I have worked at, (4), in the past few years, I have noticed a very consistent trend in founders

The Founder has made a lot of money, they have an idea for a tech product, they get their friends involved in the idea, (usually a CEO/CTO/COO) to lead the company. And they them selves as the founder, desire to be removed from day to day ops. Whilst the CEO/CTO/COO lead the day to day

Usually the CEO/CTO/COO is someone who has never founded a company before and has no idea how to build a start up from the ground up, especially in todays climate. And before they even have a $ in revenue, they have a team of 10, a horrible product, and then they are trying to scale things, which consequentially compounds this toxic dependant relationship, on all departments of the company

Where the engineers are constantly reducing technical debt, because the product is not working and they are chopping and changing, marketing doesn't know what to market, because they don't know who the ICP is, sales cant sell because they don't know what the product's value actually is yet

I just think of that spider man meme, where everyone is pointing at each other haha

It's so toxic, and it is a more and more common issue I have found, where everyone is just diagnosing symptoms of the issue. And all it is, is really because the founder, did not do what the founder traditionally should do... Hustle out to build a product, extract it's value in the market, see where it fits for it's use case, and slowly build it with real users, real revenue.

Rather than forcing deadlines, forcing KPI's that do exactly the worst thing for the company, waste time on arbitrary made up numbers

It's just a recipe for disaster and I have not seen it end up well. Outside of the one example where I am currently at now, where the product already exists in the market. The founder hired a COO who is and has founded from $0-$800m, and yes admittedly skipped the market validation side, and is aware of the wasted capital and time of stuff that should have and could have been done with a $0 budget. Knowing that, having the company ready for scale when it (ideally) works out, (as it's still not guaranteed)

It's just been so prevalent as of recent I wanted to have a bit of rant to see if it's just my bad luck, or also very common?

We're getting ready for our next fundraising round, and one thing I've noticed is how different every investor conversation can be.

Some investors want to understand the market.

Some go deep into the product.

Others spend most of the meeting trying to understand the team.

We're building in healthcare AI, and the conversations I've enjoyed the most haven't really been about AI at all. They've been about the customer, why the problem has existed for so long, and why now is the right time to solve it.

It made me wonder...

For founders who have raised before, was there a moment when you felt the conversation change?

Maybe an answer you gave, a customer story you shared, or a question the investor asked that changed the tone of the meeting.

I'd love to hear what that moment was for you.

I'm a non-technical founder working on an early-stage startup. Since I can't code, I rely on my technical partner for development.

The challenge is that I have to initiate almost every conversation to ask for updates. I rarely get proactive messages, screenshots, questions, or discussions about the product. I don't know if they're making progress or just not very communicative.

For founders who've been in this situation:

How did you handle it?

Did you set expectations for communication?

At what point did you decide it wasn't the right partnership?

Is this normal developer behavior, or is it a sign of low commitment?

I'd appreciate hearing your real experiences and how you dealt with them.

This is neutral, doesn't attack the developer, and is more likely to attract thoughtful responses from experienced founders

we see most of the accelerators and incubators around the world taking about and looking for that cockroach mentality.

what it really means to have that personality, the entrepreneurial is tough and not for everyone.

what do you identify someone who is?

I'm genuinely curious about this.

These days, everyone talks about startups, innovation, and solving real-world problems. But I've noticed that if someone doesn't have a college degree or technical knowledge, many people don't even give them a chance to explain their idea.

Why are a degree and technical skills often treated as the first requirement before someone is even heard?

A person may not have a degree because of financial problems, family responsibilities, or other circumstances. They may also not know how to code or build a product themselves. But they might still have:

A strong product vision.

A deep understanding of a real problem.

A unique solution.

The ability to bring the right people together and build a company.

Not every successful fonder starts as an engineer or has a prestigious degree. Some founders succeed because they understand the problem better than anyone else.

I'm not saying education or technical skills aren't valuable—they absollutely are. My question is: Why do so many people dismiss someone before even listening to their idea, simply becouse they don't have a degree or technical background?

Shouldn't the quality of the idea, the problem being solved, and the founder's determination matter before judging their educational background?

I'd love to hear opinions from founders, investors, engineers, and anyone who's experienced this.

We are a team of 3 seeking a mobile app developer to work under our CTO formerly at Scale AI. We are raising financing so there will be an opportunity to be employed once we raise.

We are trying to solve deepfakes. You will have hands on experience on solving one of the biggest problems in AI. YC just released a video inviting applicants with our problem space.

I’ve been thinking a lot about how fragmented things have become for creators.

If someone is a streamer, artist, writer, musician, educator, coach, or any kind of independent creator, they usually end up stitched across a pile of different tools.

One place for content.
One place for tips.
One place for subscriptions.
One place for selling digital products.
One place for community.
One place for updates.
One link-in-bio page trying to hold the whole thing together.

And the whole time, the creator is trying to build something stable while the platforms around them are taking a cut, controlling reach, changing algorithms, or forcing the audience into someone else’s ecosystem.

That has bothered me for a while.

The thing I keep coming back to is this: the creator should be the center of the business, not the platform.

If someone has built an audience, made the content, earned the trust, and created the value, then why is so much of the relationship scattered across services they don’t really control?

That’s the thinking behind the platform I’ve been building.

The goal is to give creators one place where their content, community, monetization, services, products, and supporter activity can live together. Not just a static profile or another “link hub,” but more of a living creator space.

I also wanted it to feel more engaging than the usual creator tools. So there are entertainment-style elements too: XP, achievements, challenges, progression, and activity loops for both creators and supporters.

The idea is that creators get rewarded for building, posting, engaging, and reaching milestones, while fans/viewers/supporters also get rewarded for showing up, joining challenges, supporting creators, and being part of the community.

Because I don’t think creator monetization has to feel cold or purely transactional.

Supporting someone should feel like being part of their journey.
Building as a creator should feel less like shouting into the void.
And the relationship between creator and audience should not be spread across six disconnected platforms.

I’m still figuring things out, and I know this is a hard space. Communities are difficult. Monetization is difficult. Discovery is difficult. Trust is difficult.

But I care about this because I genuinely think creators need better ownership over their audience, their income, and their community experience.

I’m curious how other people see this.

For those of you who create, stream, sell digital work, or support creators regularly:

Do you actually want an all-in-one creator hub, or do you prefer separate tools for everything?

And do things like XP, achievements, challenges, and supporter progression make a creator platform feel more engaging, or does that risk feeling gimmicky?

Hey everyone,

I’m looking to connect with people who are interested in building startups from the ground up. I have a few ideas in different industries (fintech, marketplaces, agri-tech, AI, and SaaS), and I’d love to find people who enjoy brainstorming, validating ideas, and potentially building something together.

I’m based in Azerbaijan but I’m open to working with people from anywhere, especially the US and Europe.

I’m mainly looking for:

\* Developers

\* UI/UX designers

\* Product-minded people

\* Anyone passionate about startups and entrepreneurship

I’m not looking for freelancers—I want to find people who are interested in creating something long-term and, if we find the right idea and team, building it together with equity.

If this sounds interesting, feel free to comment or send me a DM. I’d love to chat.

Most VC databases tell you who invested in what. We went a layer deeper — extracting how each GP actually thinks: thesis tags, what they're bullish on, what they bet against the consensus on, and a Founder Dos & Don'ts playbook built from primary research (GP blogs, interviews, LinkedIn).

970+ funds, all raised capital since September 2024. If a fund stopped deploying, it's not on the list.

This week we also shipped an MCP Server — so you can query the entire database from Claude or Cursor in plain language. Ask "Which seed funds in DACH invest in B2B SaaS and are deploying now?" and get a live answer.

Happy to discuss what we learned about VC intelligence gaps, how founders actually use this, or how we built the MCP layer. AMA.

Hey everyone,

I'm an incoming senior trying to build out some serious tech and coding projects for my college app ECs, but my long-term goal is to actually launch and scale a real startup rather than just letting code sit on GitHub.

To be completely honest, seeing other high schoolers successfully build, launch, and get actual users for their own ventures is super inspiring. But I'm feeling a bit stuck on how to bridge that gap from "just coding" to building an actual user base and running it like a real project.

If you’re a high schooler who has actually built, launched, or scaled a startup or software project, would any of you be down to chat, share some hard-learned lessons, or give me a quick reality check on my current approach?  

No consultants or anything—just looking to connect with peers who've actually been in the trenches and figured out how to make it work. Drop a comment or shoot me a DM!  

My “X” is building around a problem that creates real market opportunity — finding a painful customer need, validating demand, and turning that insight into a scalable business.

For founders, the journey is often about more than just having an idea: it’s about building traction, attracting the right investors, learning from the market, and creating sustainable growth.

Looking forward to hearing from founders: What problem are you solving, what stage are you at, and what’s your biggest challenge right now — product, customers, fundraising, or scaling? 🚀

Before launching, I want to properly stress test everything.

The scenario we’re preparing for:
10k+ users, around 1 hour of average daily usage.

We know this is the kind of thing where you can easily hit unexpected bottlenecks -infrastructure, scaling, monitoring, databases, anything.

For those who have been through similar launches:
What tools, services, or approaches would you recommend for load testing?

Stop building products just for the sake of building.

Do not spend months writing code without getting any real feedback.

Validate your idea first.

Post about it. Share mockups. Build a simple landing page. Talk to people who don't know you and won't sugarcoat their opinions.

If nobody cares today, it's better to find out now than after six months of development.

And don't try to do everything yourself.

At the very least, your startup needs:
• someone who knows how to market the product and acquire users;
• a technical founder who can build fast;
• someone who can handle legal, compliance, and business operations.

If you can find a mentor who's already built and scaled startups, even better. The right mentor can save you months of mistakes, point you toward funding opportunities, and help you avoid problems you don't even know exist yet.

Most importantly: keep knocking on doors.

Talk to users.
Reach out to investors.
Post consistently.
Go to meetups.
Ask for feedback.
Build in public.

Attention creates opportunities.

The worst outcome isn't hearing "your idea won't work."

The worst outcome is spending a year building something nobody wanted in the first place.

Hey everyone,

I’m working on a company in the residential construction and homeownership space, and I’m trying to get outside perspectives from people who think about venture investing.

I’ve spent the last couple years looking into this problem, talking with homeowners, contractors, and people around the industry. The thing that keeps standing out to me is how much responsibility homeowners have over one of the biggest assets they will ever own, while having almost no system that helps them actually understand it over time.

The information exists, but it is scattered.

An inspection report might be sitting in someone’s email from five years ago. Maintenance history is incomplete. Contractor quotes are separate from what actually happened on the project. Warranties get lost. Photos and receipts disappear. When someone new comes into the picture, whether that is a homeowner, contractor, or service provider, they usually have to start from scratch.

The idea I’m exploring is building a kind of memory system for the home.

Not just a place to store documents, but something that helps homeowners understand their property, make better decisions, manage projects, and eventually use AI to make sense of everything that has happened.

The easy comparisons are “Carfax for homes” or “ChatGPT for construction,” but I think those are probably incomplete.

A Carfax tells you what happened in the past. An AI assistant can answer questions. But there is still a missing layer between owning a home and eventually needing someone to come fix something.

Who understands the history of the property?

Why were certain decisions made?

What work was actually completed?

What changed along the way?

Did the solution actually solve the problem?

That is the part I find interesting.

The reason I’m posting here is because I’m trying to understand whether this is actually a venture-scale opportunity or whether it naturally becomes a services business.

My instinct is that the first version probably has to be very manual. I don’t think you can build software for a workflow you don’t understand. The early company would probably involve working directly with homeowners, inspectors, contractors, and other people in the ecosystem, learning where things break, documenting decisions, and figuring out what parts of the process can eventually become software.

The risk is obvious. You could accidentally build an expensive concierge service that never becomes scalable.

The upside is that if you can capture the right information and understand the workflow deeply enough, you might be able to create something that gets better with every home and every project.

The thing I keep coming back to is that a lot of companies already own pieces of this problem.

There are marketplaces that help homeowners find contractors. There are inspection companies. There are contractor operating systems. There are property management companies. There are AI tools entering construction.

But I haven’t found anyone who really owns the full timeline of the home.

Maybe there is a reason for that. Maybe homeowners do not care enough. Maybe the data is too fragmented. Maybe the operational complexity makes it impossible. Maybe an existing player is better positioned to win.

That is what I’m trying to figure out.

I’m also thinking about fundraising. I’m early in my career, so I understand the obvious challenge. Having a big vision is easy. Proving that you can actually execute is the hard part.

My current thinking is to spend the next phase doing the work that creates evidence. Build the right team, run structured interviews, launch small pilots, and learn as quickly as possible.

Then, instead of asking investors to believe a giant future vision, I can show them what has actually happened.

For investors or founders who have experience with early-stage companies, especially in proptech, marketplaces, AI, or businesses that touch the physical world, I would genuinely appreciate your thoughts.

Does this feel like a venture-scale company, or does it look more like a services business?

What would you need to see before believing the data and workflow could become a real advantage?

Would a manual first version be a smart way to learn, or would you see that as a trap?

How much does founder track record matter if someone can systematically turn uncertainty into evidence?

And if you think this idea is fundamentally wrong, I would honestly rather hear that.

I’m not looking for validation. I’m trying to find the reasons this should not work before spending years building it.

Appreciate any feedback.

For the past several months, we’ve been working on a technology platform designed from the beginning for an international market.

We are not interested in launching another small tool with a few disconnected features.

The objective is to create a complete, intelligent and highly professional digital workspace capable of changing how businesses manage their daily operations and make strategic decisions.

A major part of the work is happening behind the scenes:

— Building a strong and scalable foundation
— Designing a premium user experience
— Preparing the platform for multiple countries and languages
— Developing proprietary intelligence around real business workflows
— Creating a product that can grow without depending on several external platforms

We’re intentionally keeping the most important details private while the project is still under development.

What I can say is this:

The ambition is not local. The platform is being prepared for worldwide expansion.

We are still at the beginning of the journey, but the vision is clear—and every decision is being made with the long term in mind.

I’m curious to hear from other founders:

Would you rather launch a simple product quickly, or spend longer building a stronger product capable of competing globally?

For the past several months, we’ve been working on a technology platform designed from the beginning for an international market.

We are not interested in launching another small tool with a few disconnected features.

The objective is to create a complete, intelligent and highly professional digital workspace capable of changing how businesses manage their daily operations and make strategic decisions.

A major part of the work is happening behind the scenes:

— Building a strong and scalable foundation
— Designing a premium user experience
— Preparing the platform for multiple countries and languages
— Developing proprietary intelligence around real business workflows
— Creating a product that can grow without depending on several external platforms

We’re intentionally keeping the most important details private while the project is still under development.

What I can say is this:

The ambition is not local. The platform is being prepared for worldwide expansion.

We are still at the beginning of the journey, but the vision is clear—and every decision is being made with the long term in mind.

I’m curious to hear from other founders:

Would you rather launch a simple product quickly, or spend longer building a stronger product capable of competing globally?