We got our first paid user. And we're still stuck in Google's audit process.
We got our first paid subscriber. Still can't believe it.
I've been building InboxClean quietly for a few weeks — a tool that scans your Gmail and automatically unsubscribes you from spam every Monday. No launch. No Product Hunt. Just kept building and sharing it in a few places.
Then yesterday, someone signed up for Pro. $5/month. Small number. Huge feeling.
It means someone trusted us enough to pay for something I built. That hits different than any upvote or comment ever could.
But honestly? The behind-the-scenes has been messier than it looks.
Getting the OAuth verification right, fixing the payment webhook, making sure the weekly cron job actually runs for paying users — a lot of invisible work that nobody sees. And right now we're stuck in Google's CASA verification process, which is required for apps that access Gmail. The audit alone costs thousands of dollars. For a $5/month tool. It's a real wall for indie builders and we're figuring out how to get through it without burning everything on fees before we even have 10 users.
But that first payment made it real. Someone has the same problem I had — manually cleaning their inbox every week, still paying for it in time — and they trusted us to fix it.
That's the whole reason to build in public.
Next goal: 10 paying users. Building through the walls, not around them.
That first payment is the only milestone that actually means something. Not because of the $5 — because someone with a real problem decided your solution was worth their card details. Everything before that is just hypothesis.
The invisible work point is underrated. The OAuth flows, the webhook fixes, the cron jobs that have to run reliably for paying users — none of that shows up in the build log but all of it is what makes the product real. Most people only see the launch post.
Still chasing my first one — 4 products live, 0 sales. Posts like this are useful reminders that the wall is normal and the $5 exists on the other side of it. Congrats on getting through.
The card details line is exactly it — that's when the hypothesis becomes a business. Glad it landed.
Four products live is no small thing. Most people don't even get one out the door. Curious though — across those four, are you getting any signal at all? Signups, trial activations, people asking questions? Sometimes the $5 is close but stuck behind one specific friction point, and it's hard to see from the inside.
What space are the products in? And which one feels closest to having a real pull?
Appreciate that. Honest answer to your questions:
Signal-wise — traffic is coming in, especially on BCC (Business Command Center), but no conversions yet. No trial layer to speak of since it's direct purchase. The friction I've identified is reviews — zero social proof on a $37 Notion template is a real trust gap. Running a discount sprint this week to get the first few.
The four products are all in the solopreneur productivity space — Notion templates and PDF guides. Finance tracker, CRM, project tracking, content calendar bundled into one workspace. Aimed at freelancers and coaches who are paying for 4–5 separate tools and want one place instead.
BCC feels closest. It's the most complete product, has the most traffic, and when I look at who asks questions it's usually someone who already half-sold themselves. The gap between interest and purchase feels like one or two missing trust signals rather than a product problem.
What was the friction point for you before the first one landed?
First paid subscriber at /mo means more than 00 from a friend ever could. Someone who does not know you, with no social obligation, decided your product was worth real money. That is the actual signal.
The 'messy behind the scenes' part is real and it does not get talked about enough. When you are solo and have OAuth, payment webhooks, cron jobs, and a compliance audit all in flight simultaneously, the mental overhead of knowing which one is the actual blocker right now is almost as hard as fixing it.
I am building a Solopreneur Notion OS with a projects database specifically for this phase - each open item has a status, a blocker field, and a 'critical path' tag. Not to be organised for its own sake, but so you spend your limited daily focus on the right thing instead of the loudest thing.
Google's OAuth audit is genuinely painful. Did they give you any timeline estimate, or is it the classic 'we will contact you when we are ready'?
Thank you so much for the comment. The timeline is roughly 4-6weeks but can be longer as they've said. It's really crazy having to go through this!
The first customer is proof that you're no longer building a project. You're building a business.
You can say that again! The problem is a real painpoint and other services requires you to still do the manaul work of unsubscribing even as a paid user. I'm hoping our little solution helps bridge that gap successfully.
You're right. The manual unsubscribe setp is the real pain point even with paid services. Hopefully this fixes the gap for people.
It really does and hope more people find the product useful
The product solves a real pain.
InboxClean is the weak layer.
For something touching Gmail access, OAuth permissions, and automated inbox actions, trust gets decided before the feature even runs.
“InboxClean” sounds like a lightweight utility.
What you’re actually building is closer to inbox infrastructure.
That matters because once people connect email access, the name becomes part of the security decision.
Something like Xevoa.com would age much better if this grows beyond simple unsubscribe cleanup into broader inbox automation.
I have had friends who have told me they cannot signup using their real gmail account for exactly the reason you just said - "Trust". Its a classic chicken and egg problem but I believe successfully passing through the pending google verification process should help mitiage this fear. We keep building!
Exactly. Google verification helps reduce the security fear, but it does not solve the brand trust problem by itself.
Users still ask themselves one thing before connecting Gmail:
does this feel serious enough to trust with my inbox?
That decision happens before they understand the feature.
That’s why the name matters here more than in normal SaaS.
InboxClean explains the utility, but it also makes the product feel small.
If this becomes broader inbox automation, cleanup, prioritization, or workflow control, the current name may keep users reading it as a lightweight cleaner instead of trusted inbox infrastructure.
Verification earns permission.
Brand trust earns confidence.
Your argument seems fair. However inboxclean was created specifically to be lightweight and does exactly only what it was created for. Even with growth, it will always do just 1 thing; clean your inbox.
Expanding as a full fledge inbox infrastructure seems like too much and I'm not really interested in pursuing that now and in the future. As regards Brand trust, I still believe as it becomes more popular and others see it's lightweight usefulness, I think that will still help increase its trust for new users to sign up. Other lightweight popular alternatives seems to have gotten to this bridge and crossed it. I believe inboxclean will too.
That makes sense.
If the product is intentionally staying narrow, then InboxClean is more defensible than if you were trying to expand into broader inbox infrastructure.
In that case, the main thing I’d watch is not whether the name sounds bigger, but whether the first impression feels safe enough for Gmail access.
If users understand “lightweight, single-purpose, verified, no unnecessary access” quickly, then the name can work.
So I’d probably lean into that very directly:
simple inbox cleanup
single-purpose tool
Google verification
no extra complexity
That may actually be the trust angle for this product.
This is very rich! Exactly how I'm thinking inboxclean should be talked and referenced like.
Exactly how you've put it. Simple inbox cleanup. This would be perfect as a targeted SEO angle to push this forward. Thank you!
That’s the right angle then.
If InboxClean is intentionally staying narrow, I’d make the narrowness feel like the trust feature, not a limitation.
Something like:
simple inbox cleanup
single-purpose by design
verified by Google
no unnecessary access
no bloated inbox “AI assistant” layer
That gives users a clear reason to trust it before connecting Gmail.
For this product, “small and specific” may actually be the strongest positioning if you make the safety promise obvious fast.
looking at the homepage https://inboxclean.email, do you think it captures all you've said? I would also appreciate if you take it for a spin and see how the workflow is and how it works. Maybe a dummy email that isnt important can be used if you also dont trust the app yet... lol
I’ll take a proper look.
My first read is this: if InboxClean is staying narrow, the homepage needs to make that narrowness feel like the trust feature.
The user should understand very fast:
simple inbox cleanup
single-purpose by design
Google verified
no unnecessary access
no bloated AI assistant layer
I’ll look at the homepage and workflow from that angle: does it feel safe enough before asking someone to connect Gmail?
No problem. Review and give me your honest and brutal feedback.