1
5 Comments

From Düsseldorf, no code, no team, no funding — I built a Digital Product Passport system. Here's how.

I'm not a developer. I don't have a team.

I don't have funding.

But I had a problem I couldn't ignore.

Every day, people buy fake products. Stolen bikes

get resold. Warranties get lost. Nobody knows the

real history of what they're buying.

So I started building iQoxi — a digital passport

for physical products. Every product gets a unique

ID, a QR code, and a permanent ownership history.

With AI assistance, in a few weeks I built:

→ Product registration + unique Passport ID

→ QR code verification

→ Ownership transfer system

→ Stolen product protection

→ Digital warranty via invoice upload

The EU is making Digital Product Passports mandatory

by 2027 under ESPR. iQoxi is already that infrastructure.

Live at iqoxi.com — free, no ads, built for trust.

Would love brutal feedback from this community.

posted toAvatar for product iQoxi
iQoxi
  1. 1

    The core idea is strong, but I’d be careful with the first buyer.

    “Digital passport for physical products” is a big infrastructure story, but it may be too broad for early adoption. The sharper wedge is probably one category where trust, resale, theft, or warranty history already creates pain.

    Bikes feel like the strongest first segment from your post.

    For that audience, the pitch could be much tighter:

    “Give every bike a verifiable ownership and warranty record before resale.”

    That is easier to understand than a full product passport platform.

    I’d also avoid leading only with the regulation angle at the start. Regulation creates urgency, but the early user needs a simple reason to care now: avoid stolen resale, prove ownership, transfer history, protect warranty.

    Happy to put a tighter version in writing if useful. The main thing I’d map is the first buyer segment, pilot pitch, trust message, and how to make iQoxi feel like a focused product instead of a broad infrastructure idea.

    1. 1

      That makes sense. Would love to see that tighter version if you're up for it — especially the pilot pitch angle

      1. 1

        Happy to.

        I wouldn't try to do that properly in a thread though.

        If you'd like the tighter version, drop your email and I'll put it together in writing.

        1. 1

          qentraq.hq @ Gmail . com all together its email

          1. 1

            Sent you a note by email.

            I think the decision underneath the pilot pitch matters more than the pitch itself right now.