You don’t need more users. You need your first 10 right ones.
Most founders chase this:
100 users
1,000 users
10,000 users
As fast as possible.
But early on, that’s a mistake.
Because the problem isn’t volume.
👉 It’s relevance.
⸻
10 random users won’t tell you anything.
But 10 people who are actively struggling with the problem you solve?
That changes everything.
⸻
Here’s what I’ve learned:
Your first users shouldn’t come from:
Cold DMs
Ads
“Hey check this out” posts
They should come from:
People already asking for help.
⸻
Places like:
Indie Hackers
X
Forums
Where people say things like:
“Does anyone know a tool for ___?”
“How do you solve ___?”
“I’m tired of doing ___ manually”
That’s not traffic.
That’s signal.
⸻
When your first 10 users come from there:
• They actually care
• They respond
• They give real feedback
• They stick around
Because you didn’t convince them.
You found them at the right moment.
⸻
Most founders skip this.
They try to scale before they understand.
So they get:
Users → churn
Feedback → vague
Growth → random
⸻
What worked for me:
I stopped asking
“How do I get more users?”
And started asking
“Where are the people already struggling?”
⸻
That’s actually why I built LeadSynth.
It surfaces those conversations across platforms so you can:
• Find high-intent users
• Talk to them early
• Validate faster
Without guessing.
⸻
If you’re building right now:
Forget 1,000 users.
Go find 10 people already looking.
That’s your real starting point.
⸻
If you want help finding them:
IH20 for 20% off
Get up to $200K in GCP credits (24 months)
Eligible AI businesses can access up to $200K in GCP credits (24 months)
*Note : only for AI teams who are focused to build profitable scalable businesses models from day 1
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sai-rithvik-2176302b1_eligible-ai-companies-can-access-up-to200k-activity-7442865181254209536-EiDB
Well said.A lot of early founders try to solve distribution before they fully understand the problem.The first users matter most when they are close to the pain, able to explain it clearly, and willing to engage more than once.That kind of feedback shapes the product itself:
- what actually matters
- what is just a nice-to-have
- what people are ready to use now
10 relevant users with a real problem can move a product forward faster than 1,000 random visits.
Exactly. Those early users don’t just validate the idea, they prioritize it for you.
They show you what’s urgent vs nice-to-have just by how they react, what they follow up on, and what they ignore.
That’s why starting with real pain changes everything, you’re not guessing what matters, you’re observing it in real time.
Exactly. The best early users do more than validate the idea—they show you what actually deserves priority. What they keep coming back to, what they ignore, and what they try to solve right away usually tells you far more than surveys ever can. That kind of behavior is hard to fake. It reveals where the real friction is, what creates value fast, and which problems feel urgent enough that people want solved now—not later.
Your analysis of the situation is certainly accurate, but from a cautious stance, while the first one you mention could well be the high-risk extreme mode. However, those two approaches are not the only ones you could take, as there is still the 'Courage Method.' In this approach, you aren't looking for 1,000, 2,000, or 10,000 people to 'risk' starting a journey with you, nor just 10 who will stand by you through thick and thin. Instead, you seek a quantity 'X' of people who—thanks to your Inventiveness, Ingenuity, and Innovation (I.I.I.)—realize that your project is worth it.
It is important to remember that in life, everything is about 'selling' something, whether it be a service, a dream, or an idea. To sell something, it isn't enough for the idea to be great; it is necessary to be able to give it shape in the right way. For any project, the most important thing is to convince users that it will be indispensable to their lives—creating the need and fueling their visions of the project’s future with them on board.
Therefore, whether you choose Caution, Courage, or Counterproductive (C.C.C.), remember this: it’s not what you sell, but how you do it and how you describe it... Best regards.
I really like your take on this!
Yet, I can’t see how to solve the issue.
Convincing users is a nightmare. Because we need their attention, trust, etc.
If you don’t go the “easy” way of finding those 10 users and build on top, how do you do then?
Get up to $200K in GCP credits (24 months)
Eligible AI businesses can access up to $200K in GCP credits (24 months)
*Note : only for AI teams who are focused to build profitable scalable businesses models from day 1
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sai-rithvik-2176302b1_eligible-ai-companies-can-access-up-to200k-activity-7442865181254209536-EiDB
That’s exactly why starting with those 10 matters.
If you’re trying to convince people from zero, it’s always going to feel like a grind, you’re fighting for attention and trust at the same time.
But if you find people who already have the problem, you’re not convincing, you’re just helping. The conversation becomes easier because the need is already there.
After that, you can expand, refine positioning, and “sell” better like Miguel said, but it’s built on something real, not forced.
That’s really the difference between pushing vs stepping into existing demand.
Appreciate this perspective, especially the emphasis on how you shape and communicate the idea.
I’d say the difference is timing. Early on, it’s less about creating the need and more about finding where it already exists. The “courage” part then becomes how well you position and expand that once you’ve confirmed real demand.
Both matter, but starting from existing pain tends to make everything else easier.
This is very true, especially with AI tools.
A lot of founders get caught up chasing user counts, but if the people coming in don't actually have the problem, the feedback is weak and retention falls apart.
Yes, real leverage is finding users who already feel the pain your product solves. Those are the people who will test seriously, give useful feedback, and tell you what actually matters.
With AI products, that matters even more because a tool can look impressive and still solve nothing important. Pain-first distribution is what makes the difference.
Exactly, especially with AI where it’s easy to build something impressive but not essential.
If the user doesn’t already feel the pain, they’ll try it once and disappear. But when they do, they push the product, give real feedback, and actually stick.
That’s why starting from those conversations matters so much, you’re building around something real, not just what looks good.
“That’s not traffic. That’s signal.” Strong line. Curious what you look for after finding those first 10 high-intent people to tell whether it’s a real market or just a noisy pain point.
Good question.
After the first 10, the key thing is repetition + behavior.
• Do the same problem show up across different people and places?
• Are they actively trying to solve it (not just complaining)?
• Do they respond, test, and follow up when you show something?
If it’s just noise, it stays as one-off complaints.
If it’s real, you start seeing patterns and people leaning in.
That’s usually the point where it shifts from “interesting problem” to actual market.
100% agree. I'm doing the exact same thing with AccessPatch — instead of broad marketing, I audit each prospect's website with a real tool, find specific issues, then reach out with exact details. "You have 15 contrast failures and no alt text" converts way better than any generic pitch.
Exactly, that specificity is what makes it land. When you show someone their exact problem, it stops being a pitch and starts being useful. That’s the same idea behind LeadSynth, surfacing real situations so your outreach is grounded in context instead of generic messaging https://leadsynthai.app
Yes! This is the part I'm dreading! Especially having such a niche target audience
Honestly niche is where this works best, the signals are fewer but way more precise. Instead of guessing where they are, you can find the exact conversations they’re already having and step in at the right time. If you want I can show you how to apply this to your niche specifically, take a look here and grab a slot https://leadsynthai.app / https://calendar.app.google/3VPi3Rdxc1FvTf9Y8
Spot on. Most founders chase "volume" while building on rented land (algorithms).
I just shared my post-mortem on how a "Too Native" conversion logic hit $10k/mo exactly by focusing on the 'right' psychological triggers (Anatomy-Effect), only to get nuked from Medium for being too efficient. > Quality users don't just happen; they are architected through systemic authority, not just features. Own the infrastructure, or you don't own the users. 🏛️🛰️
Early-stage startups grow faster when they focus on acquiring 10 highly relevant users actively searching for a solution, rather than chasing large numbers of random users with low intent. Platforms like Reddit, Indie Hackers, X, and niche forums reveal real problem-driven conversations that help founders validate products, gain actionable feedback, and build stronger product-market fit.
Exactly this. And those platforms are where LeadSynth operates, surfacing those real problem-driven conversations so you can show up before anyone else does. leadsynthai.app
This really resonates. Focusing on “signal, not traffic” is such an important mindset shift – 10 users who are actively struggling with the problem will always teach you more than 1,000 random signups. Thanks for sharing this, it’s a good reminder to stop chasing vanity metrics and spend more time where those real conversations are happening.
The vanity metrics trap is easy to fall into because the numbers feel like progress. But a hundred random signups with zero feedback tells you nothing. Ten people venting about the exact problem you solve tells you everything.
Totally agree - it’s not about numbers, it’s about the right people. Your first 10 real users teach you way more than 1,000 random ones!
Exactly. And those ten will reshape your product in ways you never anticipated sitting alone building it.
100% - they’ll challenge your assumptions fast.
What you thought was important often isn’t, and vice versa.
100 percent, and they’ll challenge your assumptions fast.
What you thought was important usually isn’t, and the things you overlooked end up mattering the most. The key is they’re close enough to the problem to give real signal, not just opinions.
haha yeah, looks like you turned chaos into something actually useful 😄
building for yourself always hits different
Haha yeah exactly, it started as a way to fix my own frustration.
Once you see how much signal is actually out there, it’s hard to go back to guessing. You realize it’s less about creating something new and more about tapping into what’s already happening.
yeah that’s when it clicks - you stop guessing and just follow the signal
way more efficient than trying to invent demand from scratch 😄
This resonates hard. I built a pay-per-lead marketplace connecting homeowners with contractors. Started by trying to get as many contractors as possible to sign up. Got to 42. Most of them never bought a single lead. The ones who actually paid and came back? About 5. And they all had one thing in common: they were small shops (1-3 person teams) who were spending real money on Google Ads and hating the results. They didn't need convincing that leads were worth paying for — they were already paying, just getting ripped off. Those 5 taught me everything about what the product needed. The big companies with marketing departments? They signed up but never engaged. The relevance thing is real. 5 contractors who urgently need leads in their specific region > 42 who "might be interested someday."
This is exactly it. Those 5 weren’t “leads,” they were already buyers just stuck with a bad option, which is the best place to enter. Most founders overvalue signups and undervalue urgency. The interesting part is those exact people are constantly posting things like “Google Ads is killing me” or “any better way to get leads?” — that’s the signal. That’s basically what I built LeadSynth around, finding more of those 5 instead of chasing the 42.
100%. The urgency signal was the thing I missed for months. I kept pitching "grow your business" to contractors who already had enough work. The ones who actually paid were the ones actively frustrated with their current lead source — usually Google Ads eating their budget with garbage clicks. Once I stopped trying to convince and started listening for that frustration, everything clicked. Interesting approach with LeadSynth — finding people already signaling pain is way more efficient than cold outreach.
Fully agree on the relevance over volume point. One thing worth adding though: the timing window is short. Someone posts 'does anyone know a tool for X?' and if you're not there within hours, the moment is gone.
The flip side of finding the right 10 people is being ready to convert them when they show up. That's the part most founders underestimate. Great signal capture, poor response speed, and you've still lost them.
100 percent, timing is the whole game. A lot of people think finding the signal is enough, but if you show up even a few hours late, they’ve already picked something else or moved on. That’s why we focused a lot on real-time alerts and fast workflows inside LeadSynth, because signal without speed is basically wasted intent.
Yeah, you should have atleast 3-5 prospectives who need your product badly even before you build anything.
Exactly, those 3–5 people are the foundation of everything. The mistake is trying to “find them” after building instead of starting from where they already are. In most cases, they’re already out there talking about the problem, you just need to surface them early, which is where something like LeadSynth becomes useful.
I completely agree with you, and your tool seems like a good solution that would solve some of my "problems." I'll test it out this weekend. Best regards.
Appreciate that, curious to hear how it goes. What most people find interesting is not just the volume of leads but how different the conversations feel when someone is already looking. Let me know what kind of signals you’re targeting and I can help you dial it in.
That is clear, first users are always excitement you will enver forget. But I can take it from different angle - being motivated, messaging people, but not getting the responses you expect - how do you deal with demotivation??
That usually comes from talking to the wrong people at the wrong time. If you’re reaching out to low-intent users, silence feels like rejection when it’s really just bad timing. When you shift to people already expressing the problem, replies feel natural and motivation takes care of itself. It’s less about pushing through and more about positioning yourself in the right conversations.
Nice one
Appreciate it, glad it resonated.
Most people skip this bit. Getting those first 10 right is worth more than 1000 signups who never come back.
Exactly, those first 10 define the product, the messaging, and even who you should ignore. Most of the time the issue isn’t lack of users, it’s talking to the wrong ones too early, which is why finding those high-intent conversations matters so much.
This resonates a lot.
Early on, it’s really about signal over scale – the right 10 users will teach you more than 1,000 random ones. Especially the part about meeting people “mid-problem” instead of trying to convince them later.
Simple advice, but surprisingly easy to ignore...
That’s it, simple but easy to miss. Most people default to scale because it feels like progress, but signal is what actually moves things forward.
Genuinely changed my perspective. Wise words.
Appreciate that, it’s one of those things that sounds obvious in hindsight but almost no one starts there. Everyone chases growth before they understand who actually needs what they’re building.
well said one its the most hidden info while everyone chasing huge insights
Exactly, people look for complex growth hacks when the real leverage is just being in the right place at the right time.
well said one its the most hidden info while everyone chasing huge insights
Appreciate it, it’s definitely under-discussed compared to everything else founders focus on.
This really resonates. I'm building a niche content site right now and I spent the first few weeks obsessing over traffic numbers instead of asking "who are the 10 people who actually need this?"
The shift you describe — from "how do I get more users" to "where are the people already struggling" — was a turning point for me too. I started hanging out in forums where my target audience was already frustrated with existing solutions, and that led to way more meaningful engagement than any amount of cold outreach.
Curious about your process for identifying those first 10. Did you go outbound (finding them in communities, DMs) or inbound (content that attracted them)?
Love that, that shift is the turning point for most founders. For me it was mostly outbound at the start, manually finding people in communities and reaching out, which is what eventually led to building LeadSynth to automate that discovery. Inbound works too, but it’s slower early on since you’re waiting for intent to come to you instead of stepping into it.
Get up to $200K in GCP credits (24 months)
Eligible AI businesses can access up to $200K in GCP credits (24 months)
*Note : only for AI teams who are focused to build profitable scalable businesses models from day 1
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sai-rithvik-2176302b1_eligible-ai-companies-can-access-up-to200k-activity-7442865181254209536-EiDB
Strong point especially around “signal vs traffic.”One thing I’ve seen though is that even when founders find the right 10 users, they still struggle if the messaging isn’t clear enough.
You can be in the right conversation, but if the value isn’t instantly obvious, people still won’t convert.So it’s almost a mix of both: finding high-intent users and making sure the positioning clicks immediately.
Have you seen cases where the signal is right, but conversion still struggles?
100 percent, signal alone isn’t enough if the value doesn’t click instantly. We’ve seen cases where the timing was perfect but the message was too generic or unclear, and conversion still dropped. The best-performing outreach is always very specific to the exact pain in that conversation. That’s why with LeadSynth we focus a lot on context, so you’re not just finding the right people, you’re speaking directly to what they already said they need.
yes, that's very true .
100 percent, this is where most people still miss it.
Being in the right conversation just gets you a shot, it doesn’t guarantee conversion. If the message feels generic, people ignore it even if they have the problem.
What we’ve seen is that conversion jumps when the message mirrors the exact pain they just expressed. Same user, same timing, completely different outcome just based on how specific the positioning is.
So it’s really two layers working together: signal gets you in the door, precision in messaging is what actually converts.
This hit at the right time. I'm building an AI lead response tool for small businesses and spent the first week thinking about scale. Then I shifted to just finding 5 businesses locally who have the exact problem and talking to them. Completely different energy. The 10 right ones > 1000 random ones is real
That shift from scale to five local conversations is exactly where things get real. The energy is different because the feedback is different, specific, honest, and actually useful. Good luck with the AI lead response tool, sounds like you are already thinking about it the right way.
Really cool idea! This is exactly the issue I'm grappling with right now on my own app.
As I started reading, the first thought that came to mind was "where do I actually find these high-intent users?" I guess the answer is Lead Snyth! Sounds cool - I'll definitely check it out.
Yeah that’s exactly the right question.
The challenge isn’t that these users don’t exist, it’s that they’re scattered across different places and easy to miss unless you’re actively looking.
What LeadSynth does is bring those “I need this” moments into one place, so instead of searching manually, you see people already asking for solutions related to your app.
Curious to hear what you find once you try it:
https://leadsynthai.app
I like this perspective.
Appreciate that.
It’s one of those small shifts that changes everything once you actually try it, especially when you start seeing real conversations instead of guessing.
If you’re building anything right now, worth testing it even for a day:
https://leadsynthai.app
That makes a lot of sense.
Focusing the product around one clear fear or pain is powerful.
Did this change also improve conversions or user engagement?
The framing here is exactly right and it matches what I saw doing B2B outreach for years. The highest-converting conversations were never with people I convinced. They were with people who already had the problem on their mind and just hadn't found a fix yet.
The "10 right users" framing is also useful because those 10 will tell you who they are. Their job titles, their industry, their exact language. That profile then becomes your targeting criteria. You don't need a big market research budget. You need 10 honest conversations.
What's the primary signal LeadSynth uses to identify "already asking" intent? Forum mentions, search behaviour, something else?
Great question — and you’re exactly right, those first 10 conversations basically define everything downstream.
On the signal side, it’s mainly language + context rather than just keywords.
Things like:
• “looking for…”
• “any alternatives to…”
• “how do you solve…”
• “tired of doing ___ manually”
But also where they appear (active threads vs dead ones), how specific the problem is, and whether there’s decision context (switching, comparing, urgency).
So it’s less “this keyword = lead” and more stacking signals to detect real intent vs casual discussion.
That’s why those “I need this now” posts convert so differently, they carry multiple signals at once.
That’s essentially what LeadSynth surfaces consistently instead of manually digging for them:
https://leadsynthai.app
Curious if you saw similar patterns in your outreach days or if it was more gut feel back then?
this framing clicks for me - finding people at the exact moment they're already asking is so much more efficient than trying to convince cold audiences. another way to think about it: that signal-driven first-10 phase is basically positioning research, because you learn the exact language your users use to describe the problem. that makes any paid acquisition you do later way more effective since you're not guessing the audience anymore, you're replicating it. what's been the biggest surprise about how those first right users respond compared to ones who just stumble onto the product?
Yeah that’s a great way to put it, it’s basically live positioning research.
Biggest surprise for me was how different the energy of the conversation is.
When someone already has the problem in their head:
• They reply faster
• They give specific feedback
• They try to make it work with you
Versus people who just stumble on the product:
• More passive
• More “this is cool”
• Less urgency
It almost feels like with high-intent users you’re collaborating, not selling.
Also interesting, they tend to describe edge cases and real workflows way earlier, which shapes the product much faster.
That’s really what LeadSynth helps with, consistently finding those “already thinking about it” moments instead of hoping for them:
https://leadsynthai.app
This hits hard. I'm building in the AI agent infrastructure space and I've spent way too long trying to reach "everyone who builds AI agents" instead of finding the 10 people who are actively stuck on the specific problem I solve. The shift from "how do I get more eyeballs" to "how do I find the people who are already frustrated" is counterintuitive but it makes so much sense. One thing I'd add: those first 10 right users are also the ones who will tell you what your product actually is. Half the time the problem you think you're solving isn't the one they're paying for.
100% — that last point is underrated.
Those first 10 users don’t just validate the idea, they redefine it.
You go in thinking you’re solving X, and they show you they actually care about Y. And Y is what they’ll pay for.
That’s also why where you find them matters. If they’re already frustrated, they’ll tell you:
• what they’ve tried
• what’s broken
• what they actually need
Not what sounds good in theory.
If you’re in the AI agent space, there’s a lot of noise right now. The edge is catching people when they’re stuck mid-build, not just “interested in agents.”
That’s exactly the kind of signal LeadSynth picks up, those “this isn’t working” moments instead of generic discussions:
https://leadsynthai.app
This is such an important reality check. Most early-stage founders (including me at times) get obsessed with vanity metrics and total user count. But you nailed it—if your first 10 users don't stick around and give meaningful feedback, you're building on sand. The insight about finding people already asking for help is gold. That's where genuine demand exists. LeadSynth looks like a smart tool for surfacing those conversations. Quality over quantity always wins long-term.
Exactly, early on it’s not about how many users you have, it’s about whether the right ones care enough to engage and stick. Those first users shape everything from positioning to product decisions. That’s why finding people already asking for help matters so much, you’re starting from real demand, not guessing. That’s the gap LeadSynth fills by surfacing those conversations consistently:
https://leadsynthai.app
This resonates deeply. I've been building in the AI skills space and the biggest lesson was exactly this — the first 10 users who actually need what you're building teach you more than 1,000 random signups ever could.
The "signal vs traffic" framing is spot on. When I started monitoring Reddit, IH, and niche forums for people asking "how do I find the right AI tool for X?" — the conversion quality was night and day compared to cold outreach.
One thing I'd add: the 10 right users also become your best distribution channel. They tell other people with the same problem, and that word-of-mouth is infinitely more credible than any ad.
How are you handling the signal-to-noise ratio across platforms? Reddit alone has so many subreddits that finding the right threads feels like its own search problem.
Yeah 100%, those first users becoming distribution is such an underrated effect.
On the signal-to-noise side, it’s really about filtering for intent, not just keywords.
A lot of posts mention a problem, but the ones that matter usually have:
• clear context (“I’m trying to…”)
• some urgency or frustration
• or decision language (“any alternatives”, “what should I use”)
Then it’s also about where it shows up. A fresh post in an active thread is way higher signal than an old or generic one.
Reddit is noisy, but once you lock into the right subreddits + patterns, it becomes way more predictable.
That’s basically what LeadSynth does, filtering those layers automatically so you’re not manually digging through everything:
https://leadsynthai.app
so true.
right conversations matter.
I built BuildForWho to help founders with finding right convos over reddit and HN
Great to see you’re solving the same core problem from a slightly different angle.
Reddit + HN are exactly where a lot of that early signal lives, especially for technical audiences.
The hard part isn’t just finding conversations once, it’s doing it consistently and knowing which ones actually matter. That’s where most founders drop off.
Always interesting seeing more tools pushing in this direction
Exactly.
It’s rarely a traffic problem, it’s a timing and visibility problem. The users exist, you’re just not there when they’re actively looking.
Once you fix discovery, everything else gets easier because you’re meeting demand instead of trying to create it.
That’s a really important point. Consistency without feedback just turns into noise. The hard part early isn’t doing more, it’s knowing what’s actually working so you can double down fast. That’s where having visibility into which conversations convert vs go nowhere changes everything, because you stop guessing and start iterating based on real signal.
The "find them at the right moment" framing is exactly right and it's something most early stage advice completely ignores. Volume is a distraction when you haven't figured out who actually cares yet.
The signal vs traffic distinction is one I've been thinking about a lot. Search volume for my product is near zero — but Hacker News has hundreds of posts from founders asking exactly the problem I solve. Zero search demand, real community demand. Completely different acquisition strategy.
One thing I'd add: the right 10 users also tell you what the product actually needs to be. Not what you assumed it needed to be. That gap is usually where the real product insight lives.
Building in the validation space myself right now — the overlap with what you're describing is interesting. Finding people mid-struggle is the whole game early on.
The “zero search demand but real community demand” point is really interesting.
Feels like a lot of early-stage advice is still optimized for discoverable demand (SEO, keywords, etc.), while what you’re describing is more about latent demand — people feeling the problem but not labeling it yet.
I’ve noticed those users behave very differently, too — they don’t search, they talk. And where they talk ends up being way more valuable than what they search.
Makes validation less about “are people looking for this?” and more about “are people struggling with this out loud somewhere?”
The HN vs search demand distinction is underrated. Zero search volume, real community pain, completely different playbook. That gap between assumed and actual product needs is where LeadSynth was born honestly. What are you building in the validation space?
It’s both. It starts with surfacing those raw moments where people are expressing the problem in their own words, which is where the real gap shows up, and then it extends into helping you act on it while the intent is still fresh. Most tools stop at data, but the value is in connecting discovery with timing and actually stepping into that conversation before it turns into a lost opportunity.
This is a really cool tool! I gave it a go and it didn't quite work as I needed, however I think that was more to do with me not using properly! I left some feedback in your chat.
Appreciate you giving it a shot and leaving feedback. Checked the chat, on it. DM me if you want a quick walkthrough, happy to get you set up properly. Heres my booking link if you'd like https://calendar.app.google/GW6xg8rBUyad4wGE8
"10 random users won't tell you anything" — this is so true and I wish someone told me this earlier.
I spent weeks trying to get as many eyeballs as possible on my first project. Got some traffic, zero useful feedback. Then one person on Reddit who actually had the exact problem I was solving left a comment that reshaped half my product.
One right user > 100 random visitors. The signal-to-noise ratio matters way more than the number.
Reddit is the most consistent for us, the intent signals are raw and specific. Forums sleep on too. LinkedIn is hit or miss depending on the niche. The conversion gap is real though, high intent does not always mean ready to buy, usually just needs one relevant touchpoint rather than a pitch.
This is solid.
The part that stood out to me is finding people already asking for help instead of pushing traffic.
Quick question—
Have you found certain channels consistently better for high-intent users? (Reddit vs forums vs Indie Hackers, etc.)
I’ve seen in some spaces the intent is there, but converting them still takes a different approach.
This comment was deleted 5 months ago
Dashlane just warned me that your app is a Phishing attempt. I was literately trying to create a account and the warning came up. I have never seen this before. But until that is resolved, I can't move forward.
That is a Dashlane false positive, leadsynthai.app is clean. Happens with newer domains sometimes. Try whitelisting it or a different browser in the meantime. Sorry for the friction, actively getting it resolved.
This comment was deleted 5 months ago
I like this approach (though I dont like the AI post). You need to make clear what pain your product solves or what value it brings. Thats your brand promise and your reason for existing. I personally am reaching out to these kind of leads with a "I've build something, and I am interested in your opinion, can you please review it?" - in stead of "I am going to solve your problem". If you ask your first potential customers feedback they will become promotors.
The feedback ask over the pitch is something I have seen work consistently. People become advocates when you treat them as advisors first. Fair point on the brand promise too, the pain LeadSynth solves is finding buyers mid-struggle before they go cold, that needs to be front and center."
Early-stage startup success depends on finding your first 10 high-intent users who are already searching for solutions, as they provide actionable feedback, better retention, and real product validation. Instead of chasing vanity metrics like traffic or downloads, focus on user research through communities and problem-driven conversations to build a scalable, market-fit product.
Well summarized. The community and problem-driven angle is exactly what LeadSynth is built on, finding people already in the struggle rather than interrupting them cold. The retention difference between those users and random traffic is night and day.
Very much so, they are stickier better referrer and drive the platform (and sometime give you a confidence boost when you most need it). Your power users!
The confidence boost point is real, early stage is brutal and the right user showing up at the right time keeps you going. Power users are also your best product roadmap if you listen closely enough.
Totally agree — the right users matter way more than volume early on.
How did you find your first 10?
Used LeadSynth it searched for people complaining about the exact problem LeadSynth solves, reached out with something relevant to their specific post, not a generic pitch. Those conversations shaped the product more than any survey would have.
The true lesson: Go where your users are. Thanks for sharing!
Go where they already are and meet them mid-struggle. Simple but most skip straight to broadcasting.
The 'signal over traffic' point is a massive shift. It's so easy to fall into the trap of chasing 1,000 random users when you really just need 10 people who actually care.
I’m in the middle of this hustle right now—trying to find those first 10. For LeadSynth, how do you actually filter out the noise? X and Reddit are usually 90% spam, so finding the high-intent stuff seems like the biggest hurdle.
LeadSynth filters by intent patterns not just keywords. The difference is catching someone mid-problem, 'we tried X and it failed' or 'does anyone know how to do Y' type posts rather than broad mentions. That specificity is what cuts through the noise on Reddit and X.
This is the part most founders get wrong and I include myself in that. I spent months trying to get random signups through broad marketing when I should have been looking for the 10 people already complaining about the exact problem I solve.
For my product (monitoring/testing tool for web apps), the best early users came from Reddit threads where devs were saying stuff like "I'm tired of my Cypress tests breaking every time I update the UI" or "how do you monitor user flows in production?" Those people didn't need convincing. They already had the pain.
The reframe from "how do I get users" to "where are people already struggling" is simple but it changes how you spend your time completely. Instead of writing launch posts and hoping, you're listening first and showing up with something relevant.
How does LeadSynth surface those high intent signals? Is it monitoring specific keywords across platforms, or is there more to it?
The Cypress example is exactly the kind of signal LeadSynth is built to catch. Those posts do not need convincing, they are already sold on the problem. LeadSynth monitors for those mid-struggle patterns across Reddit, X and LinkedIn so you surface them before anyone else does.
Makes sense. The "mid-struggle" framing is more accurate than keyword monitoring alone. Someone typing "Playwright flaky tests" is in a completely different headspace than someone asking "how do I set up Playwright." I've been doing this manually, watching r/QualityAssurance and r/devops for those frustration moments. Would be curious to try it for finding devs complaining about test maintenance. Does it surface signals in real-time or more of a daily digest?
Yeah exactly, that difference in intent is everything.
It runs in near real-time, so you’re catching those “mid-struggle” moments as they happen, not hours later. You can also filter pretty tightly around things like flaky tests, maintenance pain, tool comparisons, etc so it stays focused on the signals you care about.
If you’re already doing this manually, you’ll probably get value out of seeing it aggregated in one place. Happy to set you up with a quick trial and tailor it to those dev workflows if you want.
This is definitely something I’ve found with TempMailDetector, that quality power users > lots of free users. Doing small things to qualify users on signup and introduce a little friction where appropriate has greatly improved our quality of users and as a result customers.
Friction at signup is underrated for quality. Most people optimize for conversion volume and then wonder why retention tanks. Qualifying early saves you from building for the wrong person entirely.
Absolutely. It's called qualified marketing lead for a reason.
Exactly, and what you’re doing on signup is basically filtering after they’ve already found you.
What’s interesting is when you move that same thinking earlier, before they even become a user. If you can identify people when they’re already in that “power user” mindset, actively looking, frustrated, comparing, you naturally get higher quality without needing as much friction later.
That’s a big part of what we’re seeing with LeadSynth, better inputs upfront means you don’t have to fix quality downstream.
This is solid advice. I'm in this exact phase right now - just launched a SaaS tool and resisting the urge to chase numbers. Instead I'm looking for freelancers who actively complain about getting ghosted by clients. Found a few on Reddit and LinkedIn already just by searching "client not responding to email." The conversations are happening - you just have to go find them.
What you just described manually is exactly what LeadSynth automates. Searching 'client not responding to email' and finding those Reddit and LinkedIn threads is the signal. The conversations are happening, you just need to be the first one there. leadsynthai.app
This is spot on. My best users always came from people already asking for a solution — way better than random traffic.
People asking for a solution is just one signal. The bigger one is people venting mid-struggle, 'we tried X and it still breaks' or 'I cannot get Y to work.' That intent is everywhere, it just does not always look like a tool request.
"Does anyone know a tool for ___?”
I see this advice but curious how often people say this in reality. Also with LLMs taking over, I feel people are going to be asking random strangers in forums this question way less often (I'd just ask Gemini).
Fair point and it is real. But the behavior shifts not disappears. Instead of asking strangers, people vent in community posts. 'ChatGPT still cannot do X for my workflow' is a signal too. The format changes, the intent does not.
great content man, find 10 before you chase 1000. product feedback trumps blind usage
Exactly. And those ten will tell you things a thousand passive signups never will.
I'm starting with a goal of 100, this is nice post
100 is a good north star, just make sure they all share the same core problem or the feedback will pull you in ten directions at once.
That’s helpful. I’m starting with a goal of ten.
Ten is the right place to start. Get obsessed with those ten before thinking about anything else.
Strong post. I think the underrated part is that the first 10 right users don’t just validate the problem, they sharpen the message.
If they all describe the pain differently, you’re probably still too broad. If they all compare you to the same workaround, you’re onto something.
Curious what signal you look for after those first 10 to tell whether it’s actually repeatable?
The message sharpening point is underrated. After the first ten we look for whether strangers who have never talked to each other are using the same language to describe the problem unprompted. When that happens you know the signal is real and repeatable.
It's a good idea, I absolutely agree. and how to find the next 10 people?
The next ten usually come from the first ten. Ask them where else they hang out, what communities they are in, who else they know with the same problem. The referral surface is bigger than it looks.
Absolutely. 10 engaged people are worth more than 1,000 passive users.
And ten engaged people will actually tell you why they stay. A thousand passive users just churn silently.
Built SaaS for non-native English speakers to decode confusing phrases.
Looking for growth partner.
Revenue share or % of sale.
Checkout https://www.leadsynthai.app/
Hey, don't get me wrong, I support indie hackers, I buy tools and support the community. But you have 100 posts, sell a tool for getting customers and you are only at 250 MRR.
I look exactly that number before buying some tool that offers to get more customers for my SaaS. Something is not working. You should make your business grow using your tool and then sell it to make other businesses to grow.
Fair and I respect the directness. $250 MRR is early and I am not hiding that. LeadSynth is how we are growing LeadSynth, this post itself came from a signal our own tool surfaced. It is a process not a switch but the trajectory is moving and the numbers will speak over time.
Super cool stuff, I built something similar to help take the pressure off that hustle to find solid contacts. Helps us focus on the important (fun) stuff!
Love that, that’s exactly the goal. Take the pressure off constantly hunting for contacts so you can focus on building and closing instead of searching. That’s what LeadSynth is built for too, turning that hustle into a system https://leadsynthai.app
I agree here 100%. Thank you for giving us more information on getting more users.
This comment was deleted 5 months ago