I shipped a productivity SaaS in 30 days as a solo dev — here's what AI actually changed (and what it didn't)
In 2019, 23.7% of new startups had a solo founder. By mid-2025, that number was 36.3%.
Something structural shifted — and I think I felt it firsthand.
I spent six years building products at companies in Kyiv. I watched features that a single developer could ship in a day get stuck for months in approval chains. The average enterprise PR sits untouched for four days before anyone even looks at it — not because people are lazy, but because process overhead scales faster than teams do.
And yet… products still shipped. Users still came. Revenue went up.
The dysfunction was real — and somehow it didn’t matter. That made it more frustrating, not less.
I always wanted to build something of my own.
The blocker wasn’t ideas. It wasn’t time.
It was design.
I’m a backend-first developer. I can architect systems, write clean TypeScript, ship reliable APIs.
But I can’t make things look good.
Hiring a designer for a product with unknown revenue felt like betting money I didn’t have on odds I couldn’t calculate.
So I waited.
Then the calculus changed.
AI-generated design gave me a starting point — not Dribbble-worthy, but good enough to validate.
AI coding tools handled the parts that usually kill solo projects: boilerplate, tests, repetitive CRUD.
In practice, something that would’ve taken me ~6 months took about 1 month.
Six months is a bet I couldn’t afford.
One month was survivable.
I built Flowly — a workspace for tasks, timers, and analytics.
It’s for freelancers who are tired of using 4 different apps just to answer one question:
Where did my week go?
I built it for myself first.
I use it daily.
That’s either a great sign — or a selection bias trap. Still figuring that out.
What AI actually changed:
Speed
Not across the board — but where it matters. Boilerplate, scaffolding, tests — dramatically faster.
Architecture, data modeling, product decisions — still 100% on me.
Realistically: ~2x–4x depending on the task.
The design blocker
This was the real unlock. Not “AI made me faster” — but “AI removed the reason I hadn’t started for 5 years.”
The risk threshold
This is the biggest one. A failed 6-month project hurts. A failed 1-month project is survivable.
That changed everything psychologically.
What AI didn’t change:
Judgment
What to build, what to cut, how to price — still entirely human.
AI executes. It doesn’t decide.
Distribution
This is where I’m struggling.
I’m a developer — building feels natural. Distribution feels like guessing.
I catch myself opening VS Code when I should be talking to users.
Shipping code feels like progress. Posting on Reddit feels like gambling.
Not rational — but real.
Where I am now:
- Live at flowly.run, with paying users
- 14-day reverse trial (full access, no card → downgrade after)
- Pricing: $8/month annual, $12 monthly
That jump from 23.7% to 36.3% solo founders?
I think it’s AI removing the two biggest blockers: time and design.
The window feels real.
I’m trying to use it.
Posting here because Indie Hackers seems better than most at the builder → distributor transition.
If you’ve made that shift:
What actually changed the game for you?
flowly.run — free tier available, no card required
the part that bit me hardest wasn't setup - it was the debugging loop. AI writes code 3x faster but the errors are 5x harder to trace. at some point I was spending more time understanding AI code than I would've writing it myself.
Great point about the 'Setup Tax.' Most people think AI is just for writing functions, but as you said, it's the auth, payments, and infra setup where it saves weeks of inertia.
Since you're building a workspace for freelancers, are you planning to integrate with other tools (like Notion or GitHub) using AI to map the data, or are you keeping Flowly as a standalone focused 'deep work' tool? I'd love to hear your thoughts on how AI handles complex integrations versus manual API mapping.
Intentionally standalone, and that's a product decision not a roadmap gap.
The whole premise of Flowly is that the integrations are the problem. Most freelancers I've talked to aren't suffering because Notion doesn't talk to Toggl — they're suffering because they have four tabs open and none of them have the full picture. Adding more sync points adds more things to break and more cognitive overhead to manage.
The one integration that made sense is Google Calendar, because scheduling is genuinely external data Flowly can't own. Everything else — tasks, time, analytics — lives inside Flowly by design.
GitHub and Notion integrations would pull Flowly toward a different product: a hub that connects your existing stack. That's a valid thing to build, but it's not this. The bet here is that consolidated beats connected.
That’s a bold and refreshing take. 'Consolidated beats connected' is a powerful framework—choosing to sell 'Focus' instead of just another dashboard is a smart move.
I see this cognitive overhead issue a lot while building Flex. Users often get paralyzed by the very tools meant to help them.
Really appreciate the insight, and I love the philosophy behind Flowly. Best of luck with the growth—I’ll be watching this one closely!
Interesting framing. One pattern I've noticed with AI-assisted development is that it accelerates certain tasks but doesn't fundamentally change the core product discovery process. Tools like ChatGPT are great for boilerplate code and initial architecture, but the real challenge remains understanding user needs and creating something people actually want.
The 30-day timeline is intriguing — seems like a solid sprint for a solo dev. Curious how much of that was pure coding vs validation and design. AI might speed up implementation, but customer discovery is still a human-driven process.
What specific workflows or features did you find AI most helpful in prototyping?
Honest split: 50% building with AI, 50% validation and fixing what it got wrong. The biggest unlock was UI — I genuinely hate CSS, so handing that off was the difference between shipping something that looks decent and shipping something that looks like 2009.
Where it didn't help at all: deciding what to build. Great at "how do I build this," useless at "should I build this." That one still requires talking to people, which I remain better at avoiding than doing.
Always i have the problem of visibility. today looking to get people to try my product more than directly sell. its been hard lately.
Yep, I think this is shift of our era. It's not like it was before.
It's interesting that you know where you are strong at and do not feel shy about accepting it. "I am a backend-first developer" => This hits harder than you think. I am also somewhat in a similar boat. Things always do not seem easy once we start doing Frontend and Backend and DB and DNS and so on and so on... What you said is right - the AI these days are becoming better and better at Frontend (kind of scaring me since I am a Frontend developer lol).
Something that was supposed to take 6 months - you did it with the help of AI in a month. That is a great number and time saver.
Great that your mindset changed and helped you become a successful Solo Founder :-) Good luck and all the best :-)
Honestly, AI gets you to barely good enough — and that's exactly why your skill still matters. Someone has to read every line it produces and actually think. That's not going away. If anything, the people who do that well become more valuable, not less.
Good Lucky :)
Thanks! Appreciate it — luck helps, but mostly just trying to stay consistent and keep shipping. 🙏
I've been working on a side project and I recognise this: "I catch myself opening VS Code when I should be talking to users". Granted nowadays it's that I find myself talking to an AI rather than users.
I sat down with a friend of mine who is a really good product owner I used to work with and she basically scolded me for focussing on the wrong things. I didn't even have a marketing website yet. Now, three days later and it's live and I can start showing the world what I've been building.
Distribution is still difficult and it's also something that I need to figure out, but she gave me a good wake-up call, and now I keep her up to date with my progress so she can scold me some more when I veer off track.
Good luck with Flowly, the website looks nice. :)
The "talking to AI instead of users" line is uncomfortably accurate. At least VS Code gives you working software. A conversation with Claude gives you a very confident plan that nobody has validated yet.
The accountability partner thing is underrated. Most productivity advice is self-directed — systems, habits, frameworks. But having an actual person who will ask "did you do the thing" is a completely different forcing function. The embarrassment of saying no to a real human beats any app-based streak counter.
Three days from scolded to live website is a good sign. That's the right response to a wake-up call — move immediately before the discomfort fades.
Good luck with it. What are you building?
this hits hard, especially the “opening VS Code instead of talking to users” part
one thing that helped me reframe this was realizing that distribution feels like guessing only because it’s invisible compared to building
when you build, you see progress immediately
when you do distribution, the feedback loop is delayed and messy
what made it click a bit was treating the whole thing like a flow instead of separate actions
not “post on reddit / try SEO / try X” but literally mapping:
where someone first sees the problem → what they read → what makes them click → what makes them try
i laid that out once in something like stackely (just to visualize steps + decisions), and it made it obvious that I wasn’t lacking distribution, I just didn’t have a clear path
so every post felt random because it actually was
once the path is clearer, distribution stops feeling like gambling and starts feeling closer to iteration again
This reframe is genuinely useful. The "flow vs separate actions" distinction cuts right to why distribution feels so foreign to developers.
When I look at what I've actually been doing — IH post, X thread, Dev.to cross-post — I can see each piece, but I couldn't have drawn you a map of how they connect. Someone reads the IH article, then what? I hoped they'd click through to flowly.run, but I hadn't thought hard about what they were supposed to read there, what moment would make them start a trial, or what would happen in the first 10 minutes after signup.
The code analogy you're drawing is right. When I write a feature I know exactly what state the system is in at every step. With distribution I've been firing events and not tracking state at all.
The "it wasn't that I lacked distribution, I just didn't have a clear path" line is the one I'm going to sit with. That's a different diagnosis than what I wrote in the article — and probably the more accurate one.
What does your flow actually look like end-to-end? Curious whether the path you mapped started at awareness or further down — and how many steps before someone actually pays.
Respect for shipping this fast.
I'm also building an AI product right now — how did you validate the idea so quickly?
Actually it was multiple researches with multiple AI models, as well as self validating and making choice based on personal preference onto what I want to use and build.
I think AI is just assistant not a magic stick
100%!
Interesting approach. Have you tested this with paid traffic or only organic?
Organic first — paid before you know what converts is just expensive testing. Are you considering it soon?
Totally agree with the design. Can't ship anything if it looks like trash. AI really changed this.
True, but it's a double-edged sword — AI raised the floor (no more obviously bad UI) but also raised expectations. Users now compare your solo-built tool against Notion and Linear on day one.
The founders who stand out are the ones using AI as a starting point, then adding deliberate design decisions that feel intentional — not just "clean Tailwind template #3."
The AI didn’t change judgment, only execution. The point really stands out. A lot of people overestimate what AI can do. Do you think the next bottleneck for solo founders will be distribution rather than building?
That is a very interesting topic you bring up, I believe distribution will be the next big business.
Yes — distribution is already the bottleneck. AI just made it undeniable by removing the last excuse (building took too long). Now everyone can ship. Almost nobody can cut through.
AI makes shipping fast, but it makes standing out nearly impossible.
When everyone can code a SaaS in 30 days, "software" becomes a commodity. The real bottleneck now isn't the build—it's the Visual Trust.
I learned this the hard way when my Medium infrastructure was nuked overnight. It taught me that unless your project has that "85mm" editorial authority and a sovereign "Bunker" to live in, you're just renting space in a crowded market.
Are you building a tool, or are you building an Infrastructure that can survive a platform ban? That's the only question that moved my needle to $10k/mo.
This hits on something I've been building around. The Medium nuke scenario is exactly why I chose to put Flowly's content engine on its own domain rather than rely on any single platform. Comparison articles that rank on Google — "Todoist vs Toggl," "ClickUp alternatives for freelancers" — are assets that compound for years. A platform ban doesn't touch them.
On Visual Trust: 100% agree. In a world where anyone ships a SaaS in 30 days, the software itself is table stakes. What actually converts is whether someone trusts you before they ever click signup. That's why I'm investing in SEO content and community early — not as growth hacks, but as the "bunker" you're describing.
The question I keep asking myself isn't "can I build this?" — it's "will someone trust this enough to pay $5/month for 2 years?" That answer comes from editorial authority, not feature lists.
How did you rebuild after Medium? Curious whether you went full own-domain or diversified across platforms.
Your point about the risk threshold is spot on. The biggest thing AI changed for me wasn't speed either. It was that I could run multiple product experiments in parallel instead of betting everything on one idea for 6 months. When each experiment takes weeks instead of months, you can afford to be wrong more often. And being wrong more often means you find what works faster. The distribution struggle is real though. I keep catching myself tweaking code when I should be talking to potential users. What helped me was setting a rule: no new features until I've done at least 30 minutes of outreach that day. Sounds simple but it works.
"Afford to be wrong more often" — that's the compounding part nobody talks about. More experiments = faster learning = better bets on the next one. The economics of being wrong completely changed.
The 30-minute outreach rule is exactly the kind of forcing function I need. Stealing that.
The risk threshold point is the one that doesn't get talked about enough. "A failed 6-month project hurts. A failed 1-month project is survivable." — that shift in psychology is doing a lot of work.
I had a similar experience building outside my day job. The thing AI actually changed wasn't the output quality, it was that I stopped needing to justify the time investment before I started. You can test a real hypothesis in a weekend instead of treating it like a 3-month commitment.
On distribution — I've been going through the same wall. What I found is that the "build mode to talk-to-people mode" switch is genuinely a different skill, not just a different task. The tactics that work for building (iteration, optimization, closing loops) actively work against you when you're trying to get early users. Still figuring it out, but treating distribution as a separate "product" with its own feedback loop has helped a bit.
"Stop needing to justify the time investment before you start" — that's it exactly. The psychological unlock wasn't speed, it was permission. You can run a real experiment without betting months of your life on the outcome.
The "different skill, not different task" framing is the most useful thing I've read about this problem. I've been treating distribution like a backlog — ship something, check it off, move to the next item. That's the wrong mental model entirely. A backlog closes. A feedback loop doesn't — it just gets tighter or looser depending on how much signal you're feeding it.
What does your feedback loop actually look like in practice? Curious what you're using as the equivalent of a test passing.
This really resonates, especially the part about AI not just speeding things up, but lowering the risk threshold. That feels like the bigger shift than most people talk about.
The design blocker point is also interesting. I think a lot of backend-heavy devs were never blocked by ability, but by that “I can’t make this look good enough to ship” feeling. AI basically turns “not shippable” into “good enough to test,” which is a huge unlock.
That distinction — "not shippable" → "good enough to test" — is exactly it. The bar didn't lower, the definition of the bar changed. You're not shipping a finished product, you're shipping a hypothesis. AI made that framing actually viable.
Really resonated with this — especially the part about the design blocker. I'm a software engineer building a training load tracker for triathletes as a side project, and for years the thing that kept me from starting wasn't the backend complexity, it was knowing I couldn't make the UI look decent on my own. AI tools changed that calculus for me too.
Your point about distribution vs. building also hits hard. I'm at that exact stage right now — the product works, I use it daily, but the shift from "build mode" to "talk to people mode" feels unnatural. Opening VS Code when you should be posting on Reddit is so relatable.
Curious about your reverse trial approach — did you consider starting fully free to maximize early adoption and feedback, or did you want to validate willingness to pay from day one?
On the reverse trial question: I considered fully free and decided against it for one reason — I wanted to know as fast as possible whether anyone would pay, not just whether anyone would use it. Free gets you users. Paid gets you signal. A product people use but won't pay for is a different problem than a product people don't use at all, and I wanted to know which one I had.
The reverse trial is a middle path: you get real usage data during the trial (so you learn what actually drives activation), and the downgrade moment tells you exactly what feature someone cared about — because that's what they lose. That's cleaner feedback than a survey.
The tradeoff is top-of-funnel friction. Some people won't sign up knowing there's a downgrade coming. I've accepted that. If someone won't try a free 14-day trial because they don't want to think about canceling, they probably weren't going to pay anyway.
Resonates hard. I had a similar experience — 10 years building fullstack at companies, then went solo and shipped 3 native mobile apps in a month.
Your point about AI changing the calculus is spot on. For me the biggest shift wasn't code generation — it was that AI eliminated the setup tax. Auth, payments, push notifications, App Store submission scripts. All the stuff that used to eat week one of every project.
The thinking part didn't change though. Defining what to build and for who — that's still 100% human work. AI just made the gap between "clear thinker who ships" and "everyone else" more obvious.
Curious: what's your distribution strategy now? That's usually where solo devs hit the next wall after building.
"Setup tax" is exactly the right word for it — and probably the most underrated part of what AI actually does. It's not the clever code, it's the elimination of week-one inertia on every project.
On distribution: that's exactly where I'm at now. Currently testing Reddit organic (genuine answers in freelancer subs, no spam), SEO comparison pages, and content on X. Honest status: early, slow, not yet compounding. The pattern I've noticed is that building created a false sense of progress for 30 days — now distribution has to earn the same daily attention. Curious how you handled it across 3 apps — did one channel work better for mobile vs. web?
The design barrier point hits hard. For a lot of backend-first builders, that's always been the silent blocker — not the idea or the engineering, but the gap between "it works" and "it looks like something worth using."
What's interesting is that AI didn't just speed up the design process here — it seems like it removed a hard prerequisite. The question isn't whether you could've done this faster before, it's whether it would've happened at all.
What does your onboarding look like? Curious how users are finding it so far.
"Whether it would've happened at all" — that's the exact distinction. It's not an acceleration story, it's an existence story. The 6-month version of this project doesn't exist.
Onboarding: 14-day reverse trial, full Pro access, no card. The aha moment I'm trying to get users to as fast as possible is the NLP quick-add — hit Cmd+K, type "Review proposal tomorrow high priority #client", task created instantly. That's when the app clicks. As for finding it: mostly organic right now — Reddit answers, comparison pages, a few X posts. Early days. Would love to know what you think of the onboarding if you try it — the gap between "it makes sense" and "I'd actually change my workflow for this" is what I'm still closing.
re: the distribution part — the thing that helped me shift from builder brain to distribution brain was realizing that distribution is basically the same skill as building, just applied differently. when you build a product you start with a problem and iterate toward a solution. distribution is the same — you start with "where do my people hang out" and iterate toward the message that resonates. the mistake most devs make is treating distribution as one big thing they need to figure out. it's not. it's a bunch of small experiments just like building. try replying to people in your niche on X for a week. try posting a genuine build log on reddit. try cold emailing 10 freelancers who match your ICP. most of it won't work but you'll find the one thing that does and then you double down on that. the key is that distribution compounds — the first week feels like nothing is happening and by week 3-4 the momentum is real. also fwiw the "opening VS Code when i should be talking to users" thing is extremely relatable
I really appreciated for your suggestions. They are really insightful and I will test them 100%.
What was your one focus thing that fired?
Love this write‑up. Really resonates how you framed AI as a way to lower risk and remove blockers, not just “go faster.” The distinction between building and distribution is spot on too — treating distribution like a product problem is a powerful mindset shift.
Thank you for support <3
Distribution is a product problem, just not the one that I am used to. Still need to adjust myself.
The risk threshold point hit hard. That psychological shift from "6 months of risk" to "1 month of risk" is exactly what made me finally ship too.
I built Scrutr — AI contract review and drafting for freelancers, renters, and anyone signing without a lawyer. Same story: wanted to build it for years, the combination of AI tooling and a much shorter path to something shippable changed the calculus completely.
Your point about distribution is where I am now too. Building feels like progress. Posting feels like guessing. The honest answer I keep coming back to: the only thing that's actually moved the needle early is being genuinely helpful in communities where your exact users already exist. Not promoting — just answering questions and being useful. Slow, but it compounds.
Congrats on getting to paying users. That's the only metric that actually matters at this stage.
AI contract review for freelancers — that's actually adjacent to Flowly's user base. Worth a conversation at some point.
For me Reddit was too tough. I just get bans and filtered posts so I lost faith in Reddit.
The compounding part I just have to take on faith for now. Good luck with Scrutr. Seems like great idea :)
The risk threshold point hit hard. A failed 6-month project is a scar. A failed 1-month project is data. That reframe alone is worth the price of AI tooling.
On the builder → distributor shift: I'm going through this right now. What's helped me is treating distribution like a product problem — meaning: what's the smallest experiment I can run to get a signal? Instead of "I need to do marketing," it's "I'll post one specific thing in one specific place and see what happens."
The Reddit gambling feeling is real. But I've noticed it gets less irrational after the first few times you post something and realize the downside is mostly silence, not humiliation.
One thing I haven't seen solved yet: how do you know if your product is even findable by the people searching for it — whether that's Google or increasingly, AI chatbots? That's the invisible distribution layer most builders don't think about until it's too late.
Good luck with Flowly. The "where did my week go?" framing is sharp.
Treat distribution like a product problem is the reframe I needed :)
Actually SEO indexing and findability is a long run instrument and takes a lot of time. So this is worth doing early but it's not the instrument to rely on in a short run.
Hey Max, really enjoyed this post.
Shipping a full SaaS in 30 days as a solo dev is impressive. The part about AI removing the “design blocker” really resonates — that’s exactly what held me back for years too.
Congrats on getting Flowly live with paying users!
Quick question: What was the hardest non-technical part during those 30 days?
Honest answer: the uncertainty of the first public post. Code has feedback loops — tests pass, things compile.
Distribution has a 48-hour silence window that feels like failure but usually isn't. Learning to sit with that delay instead of opening VS Code again is the actual skill I'm still building.
Max, I can definitely relate to your story.
A developer, front or backend, can really create applications fast if they have been in the industry even for a short time. Knowing what you're good at you can sanity check what models give you and delegating what you're weak to AI will get you at least to a point where you can get a working prototype. (And with either more experience or skilled prompting something in production.)
But AI can't create a market for something that isn't there.
That's a lesson I'm working through myself. Spending time outside the tech, talking people, help solve problems helps me make things that at least scratch itches.
I'm a consultant trying to move more to creating products or frameworks. I see trends across my clients, but there is leg work needed to get your ideas out there. That work is easy to take for granted.
Thanks for sharing your story and know you're not alone.
"AI can't create a market for something that isn't there" — good gut check. I know the market exists, just not sure if I fit there.
Pretty interesting point about legwork that I was not aware about.
What category are you building in? Curious what trends you're seeing across clients.
To answer your question: I find myself building sites for coaches. I found myself building AI tools and services for owners who are a bit older 50+.
They have a working business, and established practices. Toying around with AI, but never got the hang of the internet/social media generation.
So I'm walking alongside them and really have to remove much of the AI marketing talk and speak to their needs, domains, and how I can provide results. The AI part is really just a black box. But for many, so was social media, SEO, internet etc.
Hope my journey can connect some dots for you as well. Keep it up, and take care Max.
That's pretty interesting niche. Kudos to you for bravery. I think i would not risk going into such specific niche. I am personally choosing product that also fits me and that i can relate. Maybe I am wrong about that and that's not must have.
This resonates. The counter-intuitive thing I found is that focusing on one channel also makes you better at it because you actually learn the nuances — tone, timing, what triggers engagement. Curiosity: after you hit the first 15, did you find the channel scaled linearly or did you hit a ceiling that required a second channel?
Single-channel depth is exactly the thesis I'm testing. Honest answer to your question: I am not sure about single channel, doing multiple instead. But the logic tracks — you can't iterate on something you're doing infrequently. What channel ended up scaling for you?
"I catch myself opening VS Code when I should be talking to users" — felt that in my soul. exact same situation here, solo founder building AI infra. the building part is addictive because it feels productive. distribution feels like shouting into the void. No real advice because i'm figuring it out too, but at least we're aware of the problem. that's step one i guess.
Yeah, there is a reason why we engineers and not some marketing or C-suites.
Engineering feels linear and productive understandable path.
And now so many other skills needed for you and me.
Good luck.
Exactly. We spent years getting good at building and now the game is completely different skills.Figuring it out one awkward reddit post at a time lol. Good luck to you too man
this matches my experience. AI didn't change what I build, it changed how fast I can iterate. the biggest shift was treating Claude Code as a junior dev that needs a good spec - write the plan, dispatch the work, review the output. the part AI didn't change: talking to users, picking what to build, and knowing when to stop adding features. those are still 100% human judgment calls.
That exactly what healthy attitude is. Former engineers would not be those mad AI confident CEOs.
Reverse trial at $8/mo annual is a tight bet. What's your day-14 conversion rate looking like? Because if people use Flowly daily for two weeks and still don't pay, that's not a pricing problem or a distribution problem. That means the 4-app workflow they already have is "good enough" and you're fighting inertia more than awareness.
Too early for clean data — still in single digits so the sample is noisy. But "fighting inertia" is the sharpest framing I've read about this.
You're right: if daily users don't convert after 14 days, the question becomes whether the pain was real or just perceived. That's my current obsession.
It’s really impressive that you managed to build this in just one month and with such great quality. I’ve joined your subscriber family!
Really clear on how AI removed the blockers for solo founders. Excited to see how Flowly grows from here.
Thanks Alina! Really appreciate the kind words — excited to have you along for the ride. Would love to hear your feedback once you've tried it!
Really appreciate the honesty here about what AI actually helped with vs what it didn't. I'm building an AI-powered resume/cover letter tool and had a similar experience — the AI is great for draft generation but the real value-add ended up being in the tailoring logic (matching resume language to job descriptions). The 30-day timeframe is impressive. What was your biggest time sink — the product itself or the surrounding infrastructure (auth, payments, etc)?
Actually I would divide it into two major parts. First part is developing and delivering product and second part is infra and wiring app all external services. I think they about to be equal but second one with annoying waiting.
HACKER EXPERT ALPHA KEY DATA RECOVERY
My name is Destiny Rodrigues, and I'm from Canada. After learning about cryptocurrency investments and how my coworkers have been profiting from them lately, it really caught my attention to invest as well. However, I had no idea that this was my biggest mistake—investing with the worry brokers and falling into the hands of scammers. Thank you again to Alpha Key Recovery for helping recover every coin and clear my credit card debit. Please get in touch with them right away if you become a victim of this kind.
WhatsAPP: +15714122170
Signal : +15403249396