Why "build in public" fails on most platforms — and what we're testing to fix it

I want to open this up because I think we're either onto something real or completely missing the point, and I'd rather find out now than after we've sunk another month into it.
The problem, as I see it:
"Build in public" has become standard advice for indie founders. Share your MRR, your failures, your pivots. It's supposed to build trust, attract users, and keep you accountable.
But in practice, most build-in-public content dies for a few structural reasons:
• Wrong audience density. You post a real update on X or Threads, and it sits between a meme, a political take, and someone's lunch photo. The people who'd actually care about your churn rate or your pricing experiment aren't primed to engage in that moment.
• No context continuity. A single tweet about "day 47 of building X" makes no sense to anyone who missed day 1–46. There's no native way to follow a founder's arc without scrolling through their entire history.
• Engagement incentives are misaligned. General social platforms reward outrage, humor, and brevity — not "here's what I learned debugging our onboarding funnel for three days." So founders either dumb down their updates to fit the format, or stop posting altogether.
• No feedback loop with people who've been there. A reply from a random follower who's never built anything hits different than a reply from someone who just went through the same problem last month.
What we're testing:
Inside DVOIDER, we built a feed called "D Stage" — specifically scoped to founders documenting their build process. Not a general social feed with a startup tag slapped on it. The core mechanics:
• Every post lives inside a founder's ongoing timeline, so context isn't lost — you can see day 1 next to day 90 without digging.
• The feed is composed entirely of people building something, so the baseline attention is already relevant — no fighting for attention against unrelated content.
• Posts can range from a single-line update to a full breakdown of a hard decision (pricing changes, co-founder conflict, a failed launch) — the format doesn't force brevity or performance.
• Following someone means following their build, not their general commentary — which changes what people choose to share.
Where I'm genuinely unsure:
• Does a dedicated space actually solve the discovery problem, or does it just move the "buried under noise" issue to a smaller pond?
• Is the appeal of build-in-public partly because it's public — i.e., does moving it to a founder-only space remove the stakes that made it valuable in the first place?
• Are people actually willing to split their attention across yet another platform, or does build-in-public only work when it lives where your audience already is?
What I'm asking this community:
• If you build in public today, where does it actually work for you, and where does it consistently flop?
• Would a founder-specific feed change what you're willing to share, or just change where you share the same stuff?
• What's the single biggest reason you've stopped posting updates in the past, if you ever have?
Not trying to sell anyone on this — genuinely trying to figure out if this solves a real problem or just repackages an existing one. Happy to go deep into any of the reasoning above if it's useful.