One of my first 10 users became a daily user. The other 9 didn't.

The 1-of-10 number feels bad, but it's a cleaner signal than 5-of-10 would be — it means the product is doing something specific for someone, not being mildly useful to everyone. Instead of asking what kind of person needs this, I'd dig into what was true the week your daily user started: what broke in their workflow right before they stuck? The other nine probably just weren't in that moment of pain yet. Did your sticky user show up already frustrated that their tasks and goals were disconnected, or did Asheeve create that awareness for them?

That one daily user is probably worth more than the other 9 combined right now.

Early on, retention is validation. Instead of asking why 9 left, I'd spend time understanding why that 1 keeps coming back. What job are they hiring Asheeve to do that other tools aren't?

This is exactly why we push founders to validate user behavior, not assumptions. Most products don't fail from bad code, they fail from weak market fit. Foundersbar's Market Validation service helps uncover those signals before months of development are wasted: https://foundersbar.com/market-validation-for-startups

This is such an important mindset shift.

It's easy to focus on signups, but the person who keeps coming back is usually where the real insight is.

Have you been able to identify what that daily user does differently from the other nine?

The 1 in 10 pattern is something most early-stage founders underweight. That one person is not a statistical anomaly, they're the most specific signal you have. The thing worth knowing about them is not just why they stayed, but what they were doing before they found your product. What were they using? How were they managing the problem? What specifically made them reach for Asheeve instead of just keeping that existing thing? Because the answer to that question tells you more about your wedge than any number of user interviews with people who churned, who often don't remember precisely what was missing. The alignment framing is interesting. Productivity tools built around tasks are abundant. Tools built around the question "is what I'm working on connected to what actually matters?" are much rarer, and the people who feel that pain deeply are a specific type. They're probably already high-achieving, already organised, and still frustrated that busyness and progress feel disconnected. That's a real thing and not everyone experiences it as a problem worth solving. Who does your daily user seem to be, in terms of how they work?

That update about your daily user is gold. The way he described Asheeve as 'a coherent system for navigating complexity without losing freedom' rather than a productivity tool is exactly the kind of language that should be on your landing page. I've noticed a similar pattern building in the productivity/planning space — the users who retain don't describe the tool by its features, they describe it by what it does for their sense of control. The Vision → Goal → Project → Task hierarchy resonating so strongly suggests your stickiest users are people who already think in hierarchies but have never had a tool that matched that mental model. Worth asking: where was your daily user before Asheeve — heavy spreadsheet user, note-taker, or something else?

This is a valuable observation. One daily user out of the first 10 may actually be a stronger signal than it first appears, because it shows the product is solving a real problem for at least one specific type of person.

I like the way you framed the question: not “why did 9 people leave?” but “what makes this one person come back?” That feels like the right early-stage lens. The daily user can reveal the real ICP, the real use case, and the emotional trigger behind the product.

For productivity tools especially, I think people only stick when the tool fits into an existing daily pain, not when it asks them to create a new habit from scratch. The key may be understanding what was already painful in that user’s workflow before Asheeve entered it.

I’d probably interview that daily user deeply and map exactly what they were doing before, what moment made the product click, and what would make them disappointed if it disappeared.

That 10% retention is actually a solid signal though — have you figured out what that one user was doing differently? I had a similar split early on, and it turned out they were using it for a completely different use case than I expected.

Arhuman, I feel this pain personally. As I architect my own platform with Ragnarcraft, the hardest gap to bridge is moving from "just another tool" to a daily necessity.
The 1 vs. 9 ratio is actually a strong signal. To break out of the generic solution bucket, you have to lean into being a "pattern interrupt."
Users come in with ingrained muscle memory from using standard task managers. If your tool feels too similar, they will naturally default to their old habits—and then churn when it doesn't solve their specific problems the same way. You have to design the experience to force a break in that pattern, compelling them to adopt your new alignment-based workflow rather than their old organizational busywork.
If you can isolate exactly what that one power user is doing differently to break their old habits, you have found your wedge. Don't try to be for everyone; stay focused on that interrupt.
I am also just in "beginning" phase of course but already "I feel the pain" there :)
Keep going! BR from Tallinn

The alignment problem is real, but I found that part of it starts earlier, at the capture step. When capturing a thought means stopping what I'm doing, opening an app and typing it out, my brain has already switched contexts. The thought I wanted to catch is already degraded. I built DictaFlow to cut that friction: hold a hotkey, speak, release. The thought lands without the context switch. Later, when I'm actually organizing, I've got a clean inbox of real thoughts instead of half-remembered fragments. Different tools for different parts of the problem.

This hit home — I just shipped my 7th Obsidian plugin and ran into the same wall, except mine showed up in the sales split rather than retention. Six of my plugins do basically the same thing technically, but the two that sold were both in one category and the other four sold nothing, even though they got 3x the views.What separated the buyers wasn't the feature. It was whether the product cleared a pile that was already causing them guilt — unread articles, saved-and-never-watched videos — versus asking them to be more disciplined about something they weren't doing anyway. The people who "clicked" already felt the pain as a weight they wanted lifted. The ones who left were people I was implicitly asking to change a habit first.So for your question, the thing I'd watch isn't who needs the product — it's who already feels the problem as pain before you show up. Your one daily user probably had the alignment problem nagging at them long before Asheeve.Out of curiosity: did that one sticky user describe the problem in their own words anywhere, before or after signing up? I've found the buyers and the stickers tend to use very specific language the churned ones never do.

The 1-of-10 retention split is actually the most useful data you have right now, more than if all 10 had stuck around. One daily user who fits beats ten lukewarm ones because the one tells you exactly who this is for. Your job now is to clone that person, not convert the other nine.

Concrete move: stop trying to figure out the nine. Go deep on the one. Interview them properly — not "do you like it" but what was true about their situation that made it click. What were they using before. What specifically broke for them that Asheeve fixed. What does their work look like that "alignment between goals and tasks" is a daily pain and not a nice-to-have. The answers are your ICP, written by the person who already self-selected into it.

The pattern I'd bet on: your daily user probably has a specific structural condition the other nine don't. Lots of competing priorities with no boss assigning them — so the alignment question is theirs to answer alone. That's founders, solo operators, freelancers juggling client work, researchers, people with high autonomy and no external forcing function. People in structured roles don't feel this pain because their manager already does the alignment for them. The other nine might just have bosses.

The "not for everyone" instinct is right, and most founders fight it. Don't. The tool that's perfect for a specific person with high-autonomy/high-priority-overload retains. The tool that's fine for everyone gets abandoned in a week. Narrow on purpose.

What does your daily user do for work? That answer is probably the whole positioning.

What I'd be careful with is that the daily user can sometimes create confidence just as easily as the nine who left can create doubt.

Both feel like evidence.

The interesting question is what either one actually earns the right to explain.

That's the part I'd be most curious about.

The 1-of-10 framing is the right thing to optimize on, honestly. I'd dig into what that one user's context was before they ever opened the app — the daily user almost always has a pre-existing pain your product slotted into, while the nine were curious but not bleeding. Chasing the nine usually means bolting on onboarding and features to convince people who don't have the problem, which dilutes the exact thing the one person loved. I run a few small apps and retention, for me, comes from going deeper for the people who already returned twice, not wider for the ones who bounced. What did the daily user do differently in their first session?

Good learnings here, I have been struggling with the concept of getting a starting user base to advocate for my product.

I’m having the same issue at the moment, I’m also trying not to use social media and advertising. I’m really struggling.

The daily user is probably more useful than the 9 who left.
I’d look less at “how do we bring the 9 back?” and more at “what situation made this one person care enough to return?”
In early tests, the strongest signal usually comes from the person who already has the pain, not the people who need convincing.

The update you posted is the real gold here. He told you he'd rebuild the Vision to Goal to Project to Task hierarchy himself if Asheeve disappeared. I'd lift that sentence word for word and make it your landing page headline.

Two moves I'd make next. First, ease off trying to convert the other 9. They told you they aren't the fit by wandering off, and reshaping the product to win them back usually breaks what made the 1 stay. Second, look hard at where the daily user came from versus the 9. The source often predicts fit better than anything inside the product. If he found you through one specific subreddit, search term, or a friend, that channel is full of people who already think the way he does.

When I had a similar 1-in-10 split, pasting the retained user's own words straight onto the homepage moved my signup-to-active rate more than weeks of feature work. The people who needed it read their own thoughts back and signed up.

That 1 user is your signal. What was different about them? Did they come with a use case already in mind, or did you help them find it? Most founders chase "more users" — you've got a better problem: understanding why one stuck.

The gap usually hides in the first session. It's worth reconstructing exactly what your daily user did in the first 20 minutes vs. what the others did — not just where they clicked, but what they tried that worked vs. what might have silently failed.

In my experience, retained users hit a resolution moment early: they came in with one specific thing to do, found a path to do it, and left with something concrete. The churned users often explore more, which looks like engagement but actually signals they never found their entry point.

One specific thing worth checking if you have session data: did any of the 9 click the same element repeatedly with no visible response? That pattern separates "I hit a wall and left" from "I poked around and got bored" — and those require very different responses from you as the builder.

Thats actuallygood news tbh

This is incredibly relatable, Arhuman. Figuring out why that 1 user stayed is where the real gold is. I'm currently going through a similar phase while building Truvexa.AI—trying to pinpoint exactly who feels the pain of online scams deeply enough to stick around. Did you interview that 1 daily user to find out what uniquely clicked for them?

The 1-of-10 isn't a disappointing ratio — it's your highest-resolution piece of data right now. Nine people churning tells you almost nothing; one person using it daily for a month tells you exactly who this is for. I'd pour all my attention into that one user before chasing the nine.
Concretely: interview the daily user, not the churned ones. Ask what they were using before, what specifically made them switch, and what would make them angry if you removed it. That "what would you miss most" answer is usually the real product. The churned nine will give you vague feedback; the one who stayed will hand you your positioning.
Your alignment-vs-tasks framing is sharp, and the fact that it's "not for everyone" is the point — a tool that clicks for a specific person beats one that's mildly useful to everyone. The question isn't how to make the nine stay. It's how to find more people exactly like the one who did.
What's different about that daily user — role, how they work, what they tried before? That profile is your whole go-to-market.

One thing I’d separate is activation from retention. The 9 who left can tell you where onboarding is confusing, but the daily user is the only one who can tell you what the product is really for.

For a productivity tool, I’d ask them to recreate the last moment Asheeve saved them from drifting into busywork: what were they trying to avoid, what did they check first, what did they ignore, and what would they have done if Asheeve was not there. That gives you language for the landing page and a sharper retention metric than “came back today.”

If you can turn that into a promise like “know whether today’s work connects to the thing you said matters,” you may have a much stronger hook than another productivity workflow.

The one daily user is not a small sample, it is your entire spec, so I would stop studying the 9 who left and go obsessively deep on the 1 who stayed. Get on a call and find the before: what were they doing the week prior, what triggered them to look, and what they would lose if you shut Asheeve off tomorrow, that is your ICP in their own words. The trap now is widening the product to win back the 9, which usually costs you the one person who actually loves it, so build harder for them and let the wrong-fit users go.

### Update: What my daily user actually values

I interviewed my most active user to understand why Asheeve became part of his daily workflow.

What surprised me is that he barely talked about features.

He didn't mention notifications, automation, journaling, dashboards, or even task management itself.

The things he values most are:

• Having a single place for both personal and professional life.
• Being able to switch contexts instantly.
• Maintaining a global view of where he is and where he's going.
• A structure that matches the way he naturally thinks and works.

Before Asheeve, he used project notebooks, paper todo lists, and various note-taking systems. Nothing really lasted.

The answer that stood out most was:

If Asheeve disappeared tomorrow, I would immediately rebuild the Vision → Goal → Project → Task hierarchy as a SPA.

The interesting part is that he didn't describe Asheeve as a productivity tool.

He described it as a coherent system for navigating complexity without losing freedom.

That insight is making me rethink the onboarding and whether Asheeve should become more opinionated instead of trying to accommodate multiple working styles.