ExpenseBot - Track business expenses via Telegram
Built this after getting tired of losing receipts while running my business.
What it does:
Telegram bot that auto-logs business expenses to Google Sheets. You text or voice message what you spent ("client lunch $45") and everything logs automatically. Monthly reports on demand with /report command.
Why Telegram:
- You already have it
- No new app to download
- Voice input when you're busy
- Faster than spreadsheets
Link: https://expensebot.netlify.app
Would love feedback from other founders! What would make this more useful?
Trending on Indie Hackers
That makes a lot of sense — especially the done-for-you option.
It actually highlights something interesting:
right now you almost have two different products:
– a high-urgency, low-friction “just works” experience (DFY)
– and a more technical DIY setup that requires commitment before value
The challenge is that the DIY version is likely where most users first interact with the product,
but it behaves very differently from the version that actually works best.
That’s probably where a lot of the drop-off happens.
Feels like there’s an opportunity to bridge that gap —
so the DIY flow still feels closer to the “it just works” experience,
even before full setup.
For example:
showing a pre-filled sheet, a sample report, or even a guided “first expense logged” moment.
You already have the right model (DFY),
it’s mostly about translating that feeling into the self-serve version.
If useful, I can map out how that DIY → “it works immediately” experience could look in practice.
Useful wedge, but the current name is still framing it like a disposable utility instead of something teams would trust with real spend data.
If this expands past solo receipt logging into actual expense ops, approvals, reimbursements, card controls, or finance workflows, ExpenseBot will age out fast.
A cleaner name like Davoq would carry this much better once it moves from “Telegram bot” to actual finance infrastructure.
Fair point on the name. ExpenseBot does what it says on the tin - which helps with clarity at this stage - but I get that it limits perception if it grows into something bigger.
For now it's intentionally focused: solo freelancers and small business owners who just want dead-simple expense logging. Not trying to be Expensify.
If it expands into approvals, reimbursements, team workflows - you're right, the name would need to evolve. But at this stage, "does exactly what it says" feels like the right trade-off.
Appreciate the perspective though - Davoq is a clean name.
That’s fair.
For solo freelancers, ExpenseBot probably does the clarity job well.
The only thing I’d watch is when users start describing it as “where I manage expenses” instead of “the bot I use to log receipts.”
That’s the switch.
Once it starts owning the workflow, not just the capture step, the name becomes a ceiling.
Davoq fits that later version much better because it doesn’t trap you inside the bot frame.
That's a really clean way to frame it - "log receipts" vs "manage expenses" as the signal for when the product has grown into something bigger.
Right now it's intentionally in the first camp. Simple capture tool, no bloat. For solo freelancers who just need clean data at tax time, that's exactly what they want.
But you're right that the name becomes a ceiling if it evolves. I'll keep that signal in mind - the day users start describing it differently is the day to rethink the brand.
Appreciate the thinking. Genuinely useful.
Exactly.
If ExpenseBot stays as receipt capture, the current name does its job.
The moment users start trusting it as their expense workflow, the name starts lagging behind the product.
That’s the point I’d watch closely.
Davoq is more for that second version:
less “bot that logs receipts”
more “finance workflow layer for small operators.”
Not urgent today, but if you move toward that version, I’d seriously consider locking the stronger name before the product outgrows the current frame.
Noted. "Finance workflow layer for small operators" is actually a cleaner way to describe where this could go than anything I've written so far.
Locking the name before the product outgrows it - good advice. I'll keep that in mind.
Appreciate the back and forth on this. Genuinely useful perspective.
Exactly.
The only reason I’d think about it before the full shift is because by the time the product clearly needs the stronger name, the easy timing is usually already gone.
If Davoq fits the second version, it’s worth treating it like an infrastructure asset, not just a rename idea.
ExpenseBot can keep doing the clarity job now.
Davoq is the name I’d want parked for the version where this becomes the finance workflow layer.
Good framing - treat it as infrastructure, not just a rename.
ExpenseBot does the job for now. If this grows into something bigger, I'll think about Davoq seriously before it becomes urgent.
Appreciate the perspective throughout this thread - genuinely useful.
That’s fair.
Just don’t wait until it becomes urgent.
If Davoq is the name for the bigger version, the smart move is usually to secure it before the product forces the decision.
You can keep ExpenseBot for clarity now and still lock the stronger infrastructure name for the direction you already see coming.
That avoids having to rename under pressure later.
Nice idea — especially the “just send a message instead of opening an app” part.
One thing I’d be curious about from a user perspective though:
what makes someone stick with this after the first few days?
Because the first interaction feels very easy:
“send a message → expense logged”
But longer term I wonder:
– do people remember to use it consistently?
– does it become a habit, or does it fade after a week?
Feels like the core challenge here might not be logging,
but making it something users naturally return to without thinking.
For example:
is there anything in the flow that reinforces the habit
or brings users back (beyond the /report command)?
Curious what you’re seeing so far in terms of repeat usage.
Really valid point. The habit problem is real with any tracking tool.
Honestly the biggest retention mechanism is that it lives in Telegram - which most people already open daily. You're not downloading a new app or building a new habit from scratch. You're adding a message to a place you already are.
The /report command helps too - when tax time or month end comes and you get a clean report in 10 seconds, that moment reinforces the habit ("oh this actually works").
But you're right that I haven't built explicit habit loops yet. Weekly spending summaries sent automatically could help - so the bot comes TO you, not just when you remember to log.
Good feedback. Adding that to the roadmap.
That makes sense — leveraging Telegram as an existing habit is definitely a strong advantage.
The part I’d still be curious about though is slightly different:
even if people open Telegram daily,
logging an expense is still a separate action they have to remember to do.
So the question becomes less about “are they in the app”
and more about:
“what actually triggers them to log something in that moment?”
Because if there’s no clear trigger,
it’s easy for it to turn into:
“I’ll log it later” → and then it never happens.
Weekly summaries are a good step,
but they reinforce the value after the fact.
Feels like the stronger loop might come from:
something that connects logging directly to the moment of spending.
Curious if you’ve seen any natural patterns there yet.
You're identifying the real problem perfectly.
The natural trigger is actually the moment of payment itself. When you tap your card or hand over cash, that's the cue. The friction of opening a separate app breaks that connection - but since Telegram is already on your home screen, the gap is smaller.
That said, you're right that "smaller friction" isn't the same as "zero friction."
The strongest version of this would be something that connects to the payment moment directly - like bank transaction triggers. If ExpenseBot could detect a card payment and ping you "what was this $45 charge?" that would close the loop completely.
Not there yet, but that's exactly the direction this should go.
For now the users who stick with it longest are the ones who make it a post-payment ritual - same way some people always ask for a receipt. The habit anchor is the payment, not the app.
Really useful thinking - you've basically outlined the next feature.
That’s a really interesting direction — especially tying it to the payment moment.
I think you’re right that the strongest version is something like a bank-triggered flow.
At the same time, even with that, there’s still a small but important step:
the user has to recognize the expense and confirm or describe it.
So it becomes less about just detecting the payment,
and more about how fast and natural that “recognize → log” moment feels.
If that step feels even slightly annoying or interruptive,
people might still ignore it — even if the trigger is perfect.
Feels like the opportunity here is not just reducing friction,
but making that interaction feel almost automatic.
For example:
minimal input, fast confirmation, maybe even pre-filled context.
You’re very close to something powerful here —
it’s just that last step between “event happens” and “log completed” that probably defines retention.
Curious how you’re thinking about that interaction.
You're basically describing the difference between a tool people use and a tool people forget they're using.
The voice message feature gets closest to that right now - you pay, you immediately say "lunch $45" without even thinking about it. Three seconds. No typing, no formatting.
But you're right that even that has a step: you have to decide to open Telegram and do it.
The version I keep thinking about is where the bot detects a new charge and messages YOU first: "Hey, $45 charge just hit your card - what was this for?" You just reply with one word: "lunch." Done.
That flips the flow completely. Instead of you remembering to log, the system reminds you at exactly the right moment.
That's the interaction that would make retention a non-issue. Not there yet - but that's the target.
You're pushing my thinking on this in a useful direction.
That framing is really strong — especially the “tool people forget they’re using” part.
The bank-triggered version definitely feels like the ideal end state.
At the same time, I’d be curious about something more immediate:
with the current version (voice / manual logging),
where do you feel people drop off today?
Because even without the perfect trigger,
some users still manage to build the habit,
while others don’t.
So there might already be a pattern in:
– when they decide to log vs skip
– what feels “effortless enough” vs “I’ll do it later”
Feels like understanding that gap in the current flow
could help you design the future version much more precisely.
Curious if you’ve noticed any of those patterns yet.
Honest answer: I don't have enough users yet to see clear drop-off patterns. Just launched a few days ago.
But based on my own usage and the setup process, my gut says the drop-off happens at two points:
Setup friction - connecting Make.com, Telegram bot, Google Sheets requires some technical comfort. People who aren't comfortable with no-code tools probably abandon there.
The first few days - if someone doesn't log consistently in the first week, the habit never forms. There's no re-engagement mechanism pulling them back.
The users who stick are probably the ones with a specific pain point driving them - like an accountant breathing down their neck or a tax deadline coming up. External pressure creates the habit when internal motivation doesn't.
That's actually useful to know for positioning - target people who ALREADY feel the pain acutely, not people who "should" track expenses but don't feel it yet.
Still early though. Ask me again in 60 days when I have real data.
That’s actually a really important insight — especially the part about users already feeling the pain.
Because it changes not just positioning, but also how the first experience should feel.
Right now, it sounds like the flow assumes:
“user will invest time → set things up → build a habit”
But for someone with strong pain (tax pressure, accountant, etc.),
the expectation is more like:
“this should start helping me immediately”
So even small friction in setup or the first few days
can feel much bigger than it actually is.
It also makes me think:
the first interaction might need to feel less like “setting up a system”
and more like “I already solved part of my problem”
For example:
even before full setup,
showing what their first report or tracked expense would look like
could reduce that drop-off.
Feels like you’re very close —
you’ve already identified the right user,
now it’s mostly about aligning the first experience with that urgency.
Curious if you’ve thought about making the initial value visible before full setup.
That's a sharp observation - the first experience needs to match the urgency of the user, not just the capability of the tool.
The Done-For-You option ($149) actually addresses this directly. I set everything up for them, they're logging expenses within 24 hours. No setup friction, immediate value.
But you're right that even the DIY version could do better at showing value before full setup. A sample report or a demo expense already in the sheet when they first open it would make it feel real immediately instead of empty.
Good direction. Adding it to the list.
Appreciate the depth of this thread - you've basically stress-tested the whole product in a few exchanges.
This comment was deleted 7 days ago.