What Wev’e Built So Far, And What’s Not.

It’s tempting to present work as more complete than it really is.

Roadmaps get polished. Concepts get framed as products. Gaps get glossed over. We’d rather be explicit.

What we’ve built so far is the foundation: the thinking, the structure, and the rules that govern how this is meant to work. The decisions that are difficult to reverse later have been made deliberately and early.

What we haven’t built yet are many of the visible layers people often expect. The polish. The scale. The automation. That’s intentional.

Building outward before the core logic is settled usually creates debt — technical, ethical, or both. We’d rather move forward knowing exactly what we’re building on, even if that means appearing quieter at the start.

There’s nothing missing here by accident, the foundations are set and we are in control of what we have so far… and that feels good.

How Founders Will Shape This

Founders aren’t here to validate a finished idea.

They’re here to influence the shape of something that’s still forming.

From the start, this has been designed as a shared effort — not in the sense of voting on every detail, but in the sense of pressure-testing assumptions, surfacing blind spots, and keeping the project honest as it grows.

Founders bring perspective we don’t have. They ask the questions that only make sense once you’re invested. They notice when something feels off before it becomes a problem.

That influences matters more than scale at this stage.

If this works the way we intend, founders won’t just be early supporters. They’ll be part of the reason the system stays aligned with its original principles as it moves forward.

That’s the relationship we’re building toward.

What’s Still Unresolved?

Not everything is decided. That’s intentional.

There’s a temptation, especially early on, to over-define things — to lock down answers before the questions have fully surfaced. That often creates confidence on the surface and fragility underneath.

We’re trying to avoid that.

Some parts of this are still evolving. How people interact over time. What signals matter most. How participation should feel once more voices are involved. These aren’t problems to solve in isolation — they’re things that need exposure to real use and real feedback.

What matters to us is being clear about what isn’t fixed yet.

Unresolved doesn’t mean unconsidered. It means we’ve chosen not to pretend certainty where it doesn’t yet exist. That choice keeps the system flexible without making it vague, and open without becoming directionless.

Clarity where it matters. Openness where it helps.

Why Growth Isnt Our First Metric

Growth is an easy metric to chase and a difficult one to contextualise.

Numbers going up can look like progress even when the underlying experience is degrading. Attention increases. Noise increases. Pressure builds. Decisions start being made to sustain growth rather than serve the original purpose.

We didn’t want to anchor ourselves to that cycle.

At this stage, growth tells us very little. What matters more is whether the system behaves the way we intended. Whether it remains understandable. Whether trust increases rather than erodes as more people engage with it.

There’s a time when growth matters. We’re not pretending otherwise. But using it as a primary signal too early often leads to distortions that are hard to undo.

For now, stability, clarity, and alignment are better indicators that we’re on the right path.

What It Really Costs To Run Somethiing Like This?

There’s a tendency to underestimate the cost of running platforms that aim to be fair. So, from a non-accountants overview, these factors play a huge part in the running of a platform like this.

Not just financially, but operationally. Time. Attention. Ongoing decision-making. The quiet work of maintaining consistency when shortcuts are available.

Some costs are obvious — infrastructure, development, maintenance. Others are less visible. The cost of not monetising attention aggressively. The cost of saying no to features that would generate revenue but undermine trust. The cost of moving more slowly than the market expects.

We think it’s important to be honest about those trade-offs.

Running something like this isn’t free, and it isn’t effortless. But pretending it needs to extract maximum value to be viable isn’t true either. Many systems become expensive because they choose complexity early and then have to service it forever.

Keeping things lean isn’t about austerity. It’s about control. And control is what allows principles to survive contact with reality.

Keeping The Model Economical – On Purpose

It’s easy for costs to creep into projects like this.

Extra features. Extra infrastructure. Extra layers of complexity that slowly raise the baseline of what the system needs to sustain itself. Once that happens, pressure builds — usually in the direction of monetisation shortcuts.

We wanted to avoid that path.

Keeping the model economical isn’t about cutting corners. It’s about designing something that doesn’t need to chase growth or extract value aggressively just to survive.

That means being selective about what gets built. Saying no to things that sound impressive but add long-term cost. And accepting that slower, steadier progress is often healthier than rapid expansion.

An economical model buys freedom. Freedom to make decisions based on principles, not urgency. Freedom to stay aligned with the original intent.

That trade-off felt worth making from the start.

The Problem With “Pay To Be Seen!”

“Pay to be seen” is often presented as practical, even necessary.

It’s framed as a way to support platforms, help businesses grow, or improve relevance. But over time, it creates a predictable outcome: visibility becomes a function of budget, not quality.

That’s when trust erodes.

Once people suspect that what they’re seeing is influenced by payment, discovery stops feeling organic. Recommendations feel transactional. Smaller players quietly disappear, not because they’re worse, but because they can’t compete financially.

You only have to look at Google search results, where the top 3-5 spaces are taken up by paid advertising.

We didn’t want to build something that relies on that dynamic.

Removing pay-to-be-seen mechanics simplifies things in an important way. If something appears, it’s there for the same reason as everything else. No hidden boosts. No promoted placements dressed up as relevance.

When visibility can’t be bought, what’s left has to earn its place in a more honest way.

Why “EVERYONE” Starts On An Equal Footing

Equal footing isn’t a slogan for us — it’s a structural choice.

Most systems claim neutrality while quietly introducing advantages over time. Someone pays more. Someone joins earlier. Someone learns how to game the mechanics. Before long, the starting point no longer matters.

We wanted to remove that drift.

By ensuring everyone starts in the same place, the system stays honest. There’s no “preferred” path, no early access advantage that compounds, no way to tilt the outcome without it being obvious.

This doesn’t guarantee equal results — and it shouldn’t. Discovery is personal, unpredictable, and shaped by human behaviour. But it does guarantee that the rules aren’t quietly changing in the background.

Equal footing keeps the focus where it belongs: on the experience itself, not on how well someone understands the system.

Why We Are Not Using Tiers

Tiers are usually introduced with good intentions.

They promise flexibility. They appear to offer choice. In practice, they almost always introduce inequality by design.

Once you create tiers, you create incentives to move people between them. And once that happens, fairness becomes conditional. Visibility, access, or influence slowly shifts towards whoever can afford the higher level.

We didn’t want that trade-off.

Not using tiers removes an entire category of decisions we’d otherwise have to justify. No silver, gold, or premium lanes. No quiet advantages framed as “features”. No sense that participation comes with an asterisk.

Everyone starts in the same place, under the same rules.

That choice limits certain revenue options. We’re comfortable with that. What it gives us in return is clarity — for us, and for anyone choosing to be part of this.

Some things are easier to build when you decide, early on, what you’re not willing to sell.

Let’s not get started on space and advertising!

What “FAIR” Actually Means…

“Fair” is one of those words that gets used a lot and explained very little.

Most platforms claim fairness while quietly building systems that favour certain behaviours, budgets, or outcomes. Fair becomes a label, not a design principle.

For us, fairness starts with equal footing.

It means no one gets a structural advantage simply because they can pay more, shout louder, or optimise harder. It means the rules don’t change depending on who you are, and the outcome isn’t quietly influenced behind the scenes.

That doesn’t mean every experience is identical. Discovery will always involve chance, timing, and personal taste. But the system itself shouldn’t be nudging things in one direction for commercial reasons.

Fair, to us, is boring in the best possible way. Predictable. Explainable. Defensible.

If something needs a long justification to prove it’s fair, it probably isn’t.