11
13 Comments

Why We Only Accept Pre-Revenue Projects

I get this question often:

“Why do you only accept projects that haven’t made money yet?”

The answer is simple. The pre-revenue stage is the most important stage.

Once revenue begins, everything changes.

Revenue starts to take priority over product direction. Maintenance outweighs experimentation. What already “works” becomes harder to reshape. Paying customers bring responsibility, and responsibility leads to more conservative decisions. Even relationships shift, even if the amounts are small.

Pre-revenue is different.

At this stage, everything is still open. Pricing can change. The target audience can change. Features can change. Even the definition of the problem can change. There is no fixed “right answer” yet, which makes this the fastest period for learning. It is also the moment when honest feedback matters most.

The problem is that most platforms are not built for this stage.

Many founders carefully design subscription models before they have a single paying user. They segment pricing tiers, connect payment systems, and perfect conversion funnels. Tools like Stripe have made payments incredibly easy to implement, so monetization often becomes the starting point. But it's difficult to resonate with a service designed in isolation. There is no validation, no real usage, no organic traction.

As a result, if you browse directories that claim to feature “useful SaaS” or “tools,” you will find that very few can actually be used. Most are locked behind paywalls. Even when a free trial exists, it often requires a credit card upfront. From a user’s perspective, entering card information for an unproven, unrecommended product is a clear psychological barrier.

Founders spend $50 listing their $5-a-month product across multiple directories. At best, they gain a slight SEO boost—rarely real users. The people browsing are usually other founders, not genuine customers. To outsiders, these sites look like advertising boards. And because so few products can be used freely, real users have little reason to stay.

In the era of “vibe coding,” building a product has become easier than ever. Some creators calculate their domain and server costs—maybe a few dozen dollars—and conclude that as long as they earn slightly more than that, monetization should start immediately. But paid products that have not gone through meaningful learning cycles are easily ignored. Your product may have far greater potential than you realize. That potential does not begin with the first payment. It begins with use, criticism, and iteration.

That is why we chose to be pre-revenue only.

Our platform is not just for builders.

It is for early adopters looking for fresh ideas, for people seeking genuinely free tools, and for investors searching for potential. This only works because the products listed are truly pre-revenue or free. Not confusing “freemium” models that blur the line. Not trials that require a credit card. These are services you can use immediately, without thinking about payment.

When that is the case, real users have no reason not to try.

Accelerators and investors often cannot help but focus on current revenue when a subscription model is already in place. But in a pre-revenue context, they are more likely to evaluate the product itself—its idea, its execution, its potential.

Listing on LeanVibe does not mean you must never monetize. A project only needs to be pre-revenue at the time it is submitted. If the product grows, validates its direction, and successfully begins generating revenue, then it naturally graduates. In fact, a formal “graduation” feature is currently in development.

LeanVibe is close to the starting line.

posted toAvatar for product LeanVibe
LeanVibe
  1. 2

    The part about founders building subscription models before having a single user hit hard. Just launched my first free tool this week and this post made me feel like I'm on the right track. Thanks for writing this.

    1. 1

      You're welcome. You’re on the right track. Get users first and gather feedback. When you eventually introduce monetization, some of your early adopters will likely be happy to subscribe.

  2. 2

    Makes sense. Pre-revenue is where learning velocity matters most, and paywalls often kill the very feedback loop founders need.
    The tricky part is avoiding “founder-only traction” (builders browsing directories). I like your focus on real users trying the product without friction.
    Interesting - what are your acceptance criteria for “pre-revenue” — is it strictly $0, or do you allow early paid pilots if the product is still iterating fast? And how do you filter for genuine users vs other founders?

    1. 1

      I’ve thought a lot about this. Each time my thinking became clearer, I updated the FAQ and submission guidelines.

      In short, the current guideline is that users should be able to try all core features without a credit card. Even if some functionality is limited due to computing resources or similar constraints, those limits shouldn’t be lifted simply by paying.

      Of course, this still raises many edge cases and questions. I’ve tried to address them in the FAQ. ( /faq in my website. I cannot post link here)

      Feedback is always appreciated.

  3. 2

    That’s a very good point. Even if I’m curious to try a fresh new product, I don’t want to buy a lifetime subscription to a service that might disappear at any time. Sometimes their subscription policies feel quite irresponsible.

    1. 1

      Have you ever subscribe to an app that you later regret?

    2. 1

      That hesitation makes total sense — and honestly, I think it’s one of the clearest validation signals. When people say “I’d use this, but I don’t want to commit long-term,” it’s rarely about trust in the idea. It’s about risk in the structure. Lifetime deals and rigid subscriptions force a decision before users have enough lived experience with the product. In pre-revenue especially, I’ve found that shorter, reversible commitments (paid pilots, usage-based access, or even time-boxed trials without credit cards) create much more honest signals than “support us forever” pricing. If someone pushes back on commitment but not on value, that’s usually the moment worth leaning into — not monetizing harder, but lowering the cost of saying yes.

  4. 2

    I’ve noticed the same pattern building in the pre-revenue phase: email waitlists are easy to collect, but they massively overestimate real intent.

    What moved the needle for me wasn’t “would you sign up?” but “would you change how you work today if this existed?” Even better: showing a simple workflow (video or mock flow) and asking “would you pay for this right now?”

    Curious how you think about the transition point: at what signal do you personally move from learning mode to charging mode without killing feedback too early?

    Great write-up — this framing is refreshing in a space obsessed with premature monetization.

    1. 1

      hmmm interesting perspective

      1. 1

        Yeah, I’ve started to think that the real signal isn’t signups but behavior change. If someone says they’d actually switch their current workflow for your tool, that’s usually stronger than a waitlist email. Curious if you’ve seen something similar?

  5. 1

    thats a great point , tho in the last 6 months we"ve been buliding vipedz[online , after we have done from everything , the app/tool looks amazing same as we imagine it , so its comes into my mind would we actully keep bulding with the same energy if we start making some cash ? its just an question every startup owner have to ask his self [ btw we would like u to try our app and give us ur feedback , thx

  6. 1

    Ser trillonanio

    1000000.0000000000000000000

  7. 1

    Congrats on the launches 👏

    One thing I noticed from launches is that simplifying the post-launch buying flow really helps conversions. Curious—did you send users to a full site or a simple checkout page?