Live on Product Hunt right now. I wonder if this quiet's normal
Some weeks ago I posted here scared my idea was the bad idea. Today Soto is actually live on Product Hunt.
A few hours in: 12 upvotes, 10 of them friends I asked directly, 2 from people I don't know. Zero comments on the listing so far. I don't have launches behind me to know if that's normal or a warning sign so I'm trying just to be patient.
If you've launched on PH before, I'd actually like to know: what did your first few hours look like? Did a slow start ever turn around later in the day, or was the early pace usually the whole story? Trying to figure out if today is a normal-paced Tuesday or something to actually worry about.
https://www.producthunt.com/products/soto?utm_source=other&utm_medium=social - if you want to look or vote, no pressure.
This community really helped me and I hope that everyone will make it, sincerely. Whatever happens today is partly downstream of that conversation, so it felt right to bring you back in for this part too.
I actually completed all 11 questions with a real idea. One thing I liked is that Soto seems to evaluate founder constraints more than the idea itself — time, budget, skills, distribution, expectations. That's a more interesting angle than most "idea validators."
The biggest issue I hit was at the very end: after answering all 11 questions, I got a "Something went wrong" error before seeing the verdict. At that point the uncertainty becomes the main UX problem because I don't know whether my answers were saved, whether the analysis ran, or whether I need to start over.
I'd be very curious to see the final output because the framework itself feels promising.
Thank you for this and yes, I owe you an apology. The error you hit was real, discovered it looking through clarity. I deployed a model name that Anthropic deprecated, which broke every single API call... Fixed it an hour ago. If you're willing to try again, your feedback on the actual output would mean a lot: meetsoto.com
Thanks for fixing it. I retried and got through to the verdict this time.
I like the core premise of evaluating ideas against founder constraints rather than evaluating the idea in isolation.
My main hesitation is that it's hard to judge the quality of the analysis itself because most of the actionable part is locked behind the paywall. I can see the score and a short explanation, but not enough of the reasoning to know whether the full report is worth purchasing.
The framework is interesting though, and I think the constraint-based angle is the strongest part of the product. It feels more useful than most idea validators because it's evaluating the fit between the founder and the idea, not just the idea itself.
One thing I'm curious about: have you experimented with revealing a bit more of the reasoning before the paywall? Even a small preview of the analysis might make it easier for users to judge whether the full report is worth unlocking.
I have experimented with revealing more and it seemed that people were ''okay'' with what they had received, so they gave up. I'll try to find ''the middle''. Thank you for your time, really appreciate the feedback. If you want to see the full report, I can give you the free version. This is the email: meetsoto.app . You can give me an email and I will send you the link in order to check it out and see if soto can help you with the idea that you have. Or you can provide me your email address, whatever works best for you.
Thank you again!
I'd be happy to take a look at the full report.
You can send it to [email protected].
I'm mostly curious to see how deep the reasoning goes and how the recommendations are structured compared to the preview.
Thanks again for offering it.
Done, sent you an email with the beta link. Let me know what you think of the reasoning once you've seen the full output.
Thanks for sending the full report.
A few things stood out after reading it. What I liked most is that the reasoning clearly uses the constraints I provided rather than treating the idea in isolation. The analysis connected the budget, distribution, timeline, pricing, and skills into a coherent argument, which is stronger than most idea validators I've tried.
The action items were also more concrete than I expected. They felt like actual experiments rather than generic startup advice.
A couple of things felt less convincing. Some conclusions seemed stronger than the available evidence (for example, "friends and colleagues will not pay you"), and some of the competitor references felt a bit generic for the specific idea I entered.
One question I'm curious about: have you tested how sensitive the verdict is to individual constraints? For example, if I entered the exact same idea but changed only the starting budget or audience access, would the score and reasoning change significantly?
Overall, I think the founder-constraint angle remains the most interesting part of the product. That's what makes Soto feel different from typical idea validation tools.
Thank you so much, this is really useful. The overconfident conclusions are a real issue and I will for sure address in the prompt. The competitor references being generic is also valid. The AI pulls from general knowledge rather than niche-specific data, which is a structural limitation worth being honest about. On your sensitivity question: yes, changing budget or audience access does shift the score and reasoning significantly, the constraints are weighted inputs, not just context. Would you be open to sharing what idea you tested? Curious how the competitor references landed for your specific case.
Sure.
The idea I tested was a tool called Mentra. The original concept was helping people understand their strengths, work style, and possible career directions through a short reflection process. What's interesting is that your analysis wasn't really reacting to the "career tool" itself. It was reacting to the distribution, trust, pricing, and audience-access constraints around it.
That's why the competitor references felt a bit broad. The report grouped Mentra into the general career coaching / career clarity category, while I'm still in the discovery phase and trying to understand the specific problem people would actually pay to solve.
That said, I found the constraint-based reasoning more useful than the competitor section. The strongest insights came from the questions around distribution, trust, and willingness to pay, because those are the areas I'm actively trying to validate right now.
The second run was interesting too. I changed some of the inputs around pricing, audience access, and timeline, and the reasoning shifted in a way that felt directionally consistent with those changes.
This is really helpful, thank you! I had two people that flagged the competitor section as the weakest part, and you explained why.. I'll work on that. The sensitivity test result is good to hear, that's exactly what the constraint weighting is supposed to do. Thank you so much for investing time to do this!