Founders with an AI tool + free trial: free batch of qualified trial-starts this week, no card, no commitment.
If you're building an AI tool, you know the problem: most of the traffic you pay for — ads, directories, launch spikes — is low-intent. People click, maybe sign up, never activate. You're paying for attention, not interest.
I'm building Demofi to fix exactly that: builders discover AI tools by watching a short demo, and finishing it unlocks a perk for that specific tool — so the people who come through actually wanted it, not reward-chasers. Founders pay per real trial-start, not per click.
But I'm not here to pitch a product — there isn't a full one yet. I'm proving the model by hand first. So this week I'll run a free batch for one or two founders: I hand-pick ~20 genuinely-interested builders, send them into your free trial, and report back how they engage and convert versus your normal traffic.
What it costs you: nothing. No card, no commitment. All I need is your trial link and an OK to share the anonymized numbers back with you.
Worst case, you get 20 free trial-starts and honest data on how they behave. Best case, we both find a new channel.
If you've got an AI tool with a free trial — or you're pre-revenue and just want target-buyer feedback instead of free-signup noise — reply here or email me at ravi@demofi.io and I'll line up your batch.
This is a much better wedge than another AI tools directory.
The real pain is not “get more traffic.” Most founders can already buy clicks, post in directories, or launch somewhere and get low-intent signups. The hard part is finding people who actually understand the tool enough to start a trial with context.
The short-demo unlock model is interesting because it filters for attention before the trial starts. That makes Demofi closer to qualified trial generation than discovery, which is a stronger category.
I’d be careful not to let the name make it feel too much like “demo sharing.” The product could become a real acquisition layer for AI tools: demos, trial-start qualification, intent data, conversion feedback, and pay-per-activated-interest instead of pay-per-click.
Beryxa .com would fit that broader direction well if you want it to feel like a serious growth/decision platform for AI founders, not just a place to watch demos for perks.
The manual batch approach is smart too. If the numbers prove higher intent than normal traffic, the category becomes much easier to explain.
The "qualified trial generation" reframe is the most useful thing in here — that's actually a sharper category than "discovery marketplace" for what I'm trying to do. Filing it; I think you're right that it positions the eventual category better.
On the name: demofi.io is locked in for now. It's a decision I'd only want to revisit based on actual category-fit data, not upfront — and the name hasn't been a friction point in any conversation so far. The model has been the hard part; the brand hasn't. So I'll park the rebrand question until there's a real reason to come back to it.
Manual batch numbers are the next milestone — once I've got one pilot's conversion data versus baseline, the category should explain itself, exactly as you said. Appreciate the time.
That makes sense. I would keep demofi.io locked for now if the brand itself is not causing friction yet.
The bigger immediate lever is probably the pilot messaging.
Before you have conversion data, the pitch needs to make the value obvious fast: this is not discovery, not traffic, and not a directory. It is qualified trial generation for AI tools where the user has watched enough to start with context.
That framing should show up in three places: the homepage line, the founder outreach, and the pilot ask.
If useful, I can turn this into a small written positioning/outreach pack for you: one sharper category angle, three founder emails, three LinkedIn DMs, follow-ups, and the cleanest pilot ask. That would probably be more useful right now than another comment thread.