We reopened Avenir — but this time we’re not “launching” anything yet
Some of you might remember Avenir from earlier this year.
Back then, we were experimenting with a futuristic launchpad concept and testing whether founders would actually care about public visibility for early ideas.
They did.
What we learned from that phase was more interesting than the traction itself:
• Most MVPs fail for the same 3 positioning reasons
• “Validation” is usually feedback from the wrong people
• Timing + exposure matter more than polish early on
So instead of rushing another launch, we paused and rebuilt Avenir around a different idea:
What if early ideas were observed, not pitched?
Right now, Avenir is in what we’re calling an Observation Phase.
We’ve opened a limited public board where founders can place raw ideas or MVPs in front of early attention — no decks, no demos, no hype. Just the idea, visible.
We’re watching how they behave:
which ones attract interest
which ones collapse immediately
which patterns repeat
That intelligence is shaping the platform itself.
There’s no hard sell here.
We’re just reopening the doors quietly and documenting what we see.
If you were part of Avenir before — or you’re curious how ideas actually perform before launch — you might find this phase interesting.
Happy to answer questions or share what we’re noticing so far.
Avenir sounds amazing. Good luck with your project from a fellow founder:)
HIGHLY APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT!!
Good to know you are observing your own platform! Got an error when I tried to broadcast my MVP: TypeError: NetworkError when attempting to fetch resource.
Thank you for the feedback — and great catch on the error.
We’re currently rebuilding part of our backend infrastructure to significantly improve reliability and performance, which temporarily affected the broadcast feature.
The issue is already being addressed, and the updated system will be live within the next few days. We’ll post an update here as soon as the fix is deployed so you can continue with your MVP submission seamlessly.
Appreciate your patience, and thanks for building with us.
Observation phase is smart - you see WHAT people do (which ideas attract interest, which collapse). But there's a gap: understanding WHY.
An idea can attract attention but still confuse people. You'll see clicks, reads, maybe even signups - but they won't understand what you're actually offering fast enough to care.
That's the difference between visibility and comprehension. Most validation measures interest, not understanding.
We're building voice agents that guide users through products in real-time (demogod.me) - basically ensuring people understand what they're looking at before you ask them to commit attention.
Your observation approach nails the visibility layer. The next frontier is measuring how quickly people "get it" vs just seeing it.
Validation is usually feedback from the wrong people — this is so true.I've seen founders get excited because friends and family say "great idea!" but that means nothing. The real test is whether strangers with the problem actually care. The observation approach is interesting. Removes the pressure to perform and lets you see genuine interest vs polite encouragement. What's been the most surprising pattern you've noticed so far?
Great point — friends and family feedback is emotional, not diagnostic.
The most surprising pattern we’ve noticed so far is this:
people don’t articulate their real problems at first — they demonstrate them through behavior.
When we stopped asking “what do you think?” and started observing:
where they hesitate,
what they abandon,
what they come back to,
and what they’re willing to invest time in,
the signal became very clear very fast.
Another unexpected insight:
early interest is rarely loud. The strongest users are usually the quiet ones who keep returning, refining their ideas, and pushing for depth without hype.
That’s when you know you’re not getting politeness — you’re getting pull.
Interesting approach. Observing ideas without forcing pitches feels more honest than artificial validation. Curious what patterns you are already seeing around why ideas collapse early.
The earliest collapses almost always come from the same few patterns:
Most founders fall in love with the solution before they truly understand the problem.
So when reality pushes back, there’s nothing solid underneath.
Another big one: people underestimate how much clarity matters.
When an idea can’t be explained simply, it usually means the thinking isn’t finished — and the product collapses under its own complexity.
We’ve also seen that ideas die fast when the founder is the only one emotionally invested.
If strangers don’t feel a small sense of urgency or curiosity, the idea has no momentum to grow.
Observation makes this obvious because you’re not hearing what people say — you’re watching what they actually do.
Great insights in your post! Finding early users and monitoring relevant conversations can definitely be a challenge.
I built a Chrome extension called PulseOfReddit that helps with exactly this - it tracks Reddit keywords and alerts you when relevant discussions pop up. It's helped me catch early conversations and validate ideas faster. Offering free access for the first 10 users if you want to try it out.
Website:
pulseofredditcom