Though funny thing - while writing that admittedly over-caffeinated post, I was watching something more interesting happen: $400+ in binding commitments rolled in over 24 hours for a GitHub bot that doesn't exist yet. Not "I'm interested" clicks. Actual credit cards, 7 random internet user credit cards.
The prototype that revealed the gap? It wasn't the bot. It was discovering people will pay for software that literally doesn't exist if you just ask them to commit first. The friction isn't in building - it's in validation.
I spent years maintaining a 13k-star project, burning out while users tried to throw money at features. Built this "commitment engine" in 3 hours. Now I'm thinking: what if every open source project could pre-sell features before writing them? What if every startup could get paid before building?
You're right to call out the hype. But sometimes the real billion-dollar opportunity isn't what you're selling - it's what you accidentally discovered while selling it. This validation mechanism might be more valuable than the original product.
"Build nothing → Get paid → Build exactly that" beats "Build everything → Hope someone pays" every time.
But yeah, I should probably calm down with the "every gap is billions" talk. Maybe just millions.
I don’t understand: “ I launched PRiority yesterday. From tweet to deployed product in three hours”
Beside a landing page which could be done in Wordpress since years without that much compute power, what is the product?
You raise a great point - and honestly, it's exactly the reaction that validates why this exists.
You're right that the visible part is just a landing page. But that's like saying Stripe is just a payment form, or that Product Hunt is just a list. The innovation isn't the frontend - it's the system underneath.
What I actually built in 3 hours is a "commitment engine". Not a survey asking 'would you use this?' (everyone says yes), but a system that asks 'will you put money behind this?' The difference between intention and commitment is everything in product validation.
Here's what's actually happening:
- In 24 hours, I've collected hundreds of dollars in binding commitments for a product that doesn't exist yet
- Each payment is a data point with skin in the game - real signal, zero noise
- I got real feedback from real users and I am changing the business model and details of the specs of the Github bot as we talk
- The GitHub bot implementation? That's the easy part. I can do that in less than 3 hours. The hard part was proving people will pay for it BEFORE building it
Think about it: How many products die after months of development because nobody actually wanted them? How many 'validate with landing pages' experiments get false positives from people who click 'interested' but never convert?
This flips the entire model. Build nothing → Get paid → Build only what's already sold.
I believe this is the future of how products get built. Not 'build it and they will come,' but 'they came, they paid, now build it.'
so, what's the twist? Once this works, the validation platform itself (product #2) becomes the real business. This would be something like Kickstarter meets AngelList meets GitHub, every idea gets validated with real money before a single line of code is written.
"In 24 hours, I've collected hundreds of dollars in binding commitments for a product that doesn't exist yet " - so the original statement "From tweet to deployed product in three hours" means actually 'from tweet to non-existing product in 3 hours' - so what you spend these 3 hours on? Why you need claude for it? what does this have to do with software?
Talking about the actual development: "The GitHub bot implementation? That's the easy part. I can do that in less than 3 hours." - if you can do so, anyone can do, so why to buy your 'product'?
'build it and they will come,' I think thats a very outdated view - basic marketing classes teach you how to validate your product market fit, especially if you go into new markets.
all in all, "Why Everything You Know About Software Is Now Wrong" just reflects on how you misunderstand profesional software companies - they dont build for fun or try out something new - they build to deliver solutions for customer requirements.
But perhaps I am wrong - perhaps stripe already knows that "everything you know about software is wront", and they dont "spent months planning architectures?" and achieved 99.999 uptime with claude and abit of luck: https://stripe.com/blog/how-stripes-document-databases-suppo... .
I will think about it once again when I stuck in Tokyo underground caus the entire IC system goes down as it was reimplemented within 3 hours by vibe coding :)
Wait, are you saying you want to help build this? Because YES - I've validated demand (money's already flowing in from the Stripe Fund buttons on the page at the bottom), and I need smart people who get it.
Have to use real intelligence to solve this, AI can write the program, but it doesn't always work. I developed a thing with my mind called Super Debugging, where I can look at someone else's code and find the flaws in it without documentation. All I need to do is learn the language and start super debugging.
If I can improve and debug code written by bachelor's of Computer Science majors, I should be able to handle AI/ML/VIBE coding.
Ha, you know what? Your actually making my case for me.
'Markdown is the universal language of AI' - yeah ok, I got carried away with the marketing speak there. Guilty. But here's the thing tho... every single AI model is literally trained on github. When you ask ChatGPT or Claude to write docs, what format does it use? Markdown. When you feed it code documentation, whats it expecting? Markdown. Its not some cosmic truth, its just... practical reality. But yeah, calling it "universal language" was cringe, I'll give you that.
You might remember the recent debate of JSON vs XML vs Markdown:
https://x.com/_Anshuman_Jha/status/1953826030084665804
Anyways.
'Vaporware',, This is EXACTLY the problme I'm trying to solve here https://gunta.github.io/PRiority/ !!
You know what vaporware actually is? Its when someone builds for 6 months in secret, launches with huge promises, then disappears with peoples money.
What I'm doing is literally the opposite - I'm asking 'will you pay for this?' BEFORE I build anything. If people say no (with their wallets), I build nothing. Zero vaporware created.
Think about it... I've collected hundreds of dollars in 24hrs for something that I explicitly tell people DOESN'T EXIST YET. Thats not vaporware - thats just pre-orders with honesty.
The difference? Traditional vaporware: Build promises → Take money → Never deliver
My approach: Take commitments → Hit threshold or refund → Build only what's funded
'Buzzwords and hype' - You got me there. But you know what else is hype? Every successful product launch ever. The difference is whether you deliver after the hype or not.
The github bot? I could literally build it tonight if I wanted. Its not that complicated - parse PRs, check payment status, merge or don't merge. The tech is trivial. The innovation (if you can even call it that) is just asking 'who wants this enough to pay?' before writing a single line of code.
Your skepticism is totally valid btw. We've all seen too much BS in tech. But engagment is signal too - even you cared enough to comment. And honestly? I'd rather have skeptics keeping me honest than cheerleaders enabling vaporware.
The real test: if I don't deliver after taking money, come back and roast me. Screenshot this. I'll deserve it.
> Every prototype reveals ten gaps in the market. Every gap is a billion-dollar opportunity that didn’t exist six months ago.
Exactly. Here's an instructional video to get you started: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/v7AoKWTTe9k
Ha! Fair play on the reality check ;)
Though funny thing - while writing that admittedly over-caffeinated post, I was watching something more interesting happen: $400+ in binding commitments rolled in over 24 hours for a GitHub bot that doesn't exist yet. Not "I'm interested" clicks. Actual credit cards, 7 random internet user credit cards.
The prototype that revealed the gap? It wasn't the bot. It was discovering people will pay for software that literally doesn't exist if you just ask them to commit first. The friction isn't in building - it's in validation.
I spent years maintaining a 13k-star project, burning out while users tried to throw money at features. Built this "commitment engine" in 3 hours. Now I'm thinking: what if every open source project could pre-sell features before writing them? What if every startup could get paid before building?
You're right to call out the hype. But sometimes the real billion-dollar opportunity isn't what you're selling - it's what you accidentally discovered while selling it. This validation mechanism might be more valuable than the original product.
"Build nothing → Get paid → Build exactly that" beats "Build everything → Hope someone pays" every time.
But yeah, I should probably calm down with the "every gap is billions" talk. Maybe just millions.
I don’t understand: “ I launched PRiority yesterday. From tweet to deployed product in three hours” Beside a landing page which could be done in Wordpress since years without that much compute power, what is the product?
You raise a great point - and honestly, it's exactly the reaction that validates why this exists.
You're right that the visible part is just a landing page. But that's like saying Stripe is just a payment form, or that Product Hunt is just a list. The innovation isn't the frontend - it's the system underneath.
What I actually built in 3 hours is a "commitment engine". Not a survey asking 'would you use this?' (everyone says yes), but a system that asks 'will you put money behind this?' The difference between intention and commitment is everything in product validation.
Here's what's actually happening: - In 24 hours, I've collected hundreds of dollars in binding commitments for a product that doesn't exist yet - Each payment is a data point with skin in the game - real signal, zero noise - I got real feedback from real users and I am changing the business model and details of the specs of the Github bot as we talk - The GitHub bot implementation? That's the easy part. I can do that in less than 3 hours. The hard part was proving people will pay for it BEFORE building it
Think about it: How many products die after months of development because nobody actually wanted them? How many 'validate with landing pages' experiments get false positives from people who click 'interested' but never convert?
This flips the entire model. Build nothing → Get paid → Build only what's already sold.
I believe this is the future of how products get built. Not 'build it and they will come,' but 'they came, they paid, now build it.'
so, what's the twist? Once this works, the validation platform itself (product #2) becomes the real business. This would be something like Kickstarter meets AngelList meets GitHub, every idea gets validated with real money before a single line of code is written.
I am more confused - a "commitment engine" ? Like crowdfunding? Seems its a static page which does not reflect the actual demand: https://github.com/gunta/PRiority/blob/5f05aea3b499f7830a82f... - so where is the "system underneath"?
"In 24 hours, I've collected hundreds of dollars in binding commitments for a product that doesn't exist yet " - so the original statement "From tweet to deployed product in three hours" means actually 'from tweet to non-existing product in 3 hours' - so what you spend these 3 hours on? Why you need claude for it? what does this have to do with software?
Talking about the actual development: "The GitHub bot implementation? That's the easy part. I can do that in less than 3 hours." - if you can do so, anyone can do, so why to buy your 'product'?
'build it and they will come,' I think thats a very outdated view - basic marketing classes teach you how to validate your product market fit, especially if you go into new markets.
all in all, "Why Everything You Know About Software Is Now Wrong" just reflects on how you misunderstand profesional software companies - they dont build for fun or try out something new - they build to deliver solutions for customer requirements.
But perhaps I am wrong - perhaps stripe already knows that "everything you know about software is wront", and they dont "spent months planning architectures?" and achieved 99.999 uptime with claude and abit of luck: https://stripe.com/blog/how-stripes-document-databases-suppo... . I will think about it once again when I stuck in Tokyo underground caus the entire IC system goes down as it was reimplemented within 3 hours by vibe coding :)
It is time for people like me to pick up the pieces and make something that works.
Wait, are you saying you want to help build this? Because YES - I've validated demand (money's already flowing in from the Stripe Fund buttons on the page at the bottom), and I need smart people who get it.
What's your angle on solving this?
Have to use real intelligence to solve this, AI can write the program, but it doesn't always work. I developed a thing with my mind called Super Debugging, where I can look at someone else's code and find the flaws in it without documentation. All I need to do is learn the language and start super debugging.
If I can improve and debug code written by bachelor's of Computer Science majors, I should be able to handle AI/ML/VIBE coding.
Buzzwords, hype, and science fiction.
> Markdown is the universal language of the AI age
Ridiculous.
> This is a crowdfunding campaign
Vaporware.
Ha, you know what? Your actually making my case for me. 'Markdown is the universal language of AI' - yeah ok, I got carried away with the marketing speak there. Guilty. But here's the thing tho... every single AI model is literally trained on github. When you ask ChatGPT or Claude to write docs, what format does it use? Markdown. When you feed it code documentation, whats it expecting? Markdown. Its not some cosmic truth, its just... practical reality. But yeah, calling it "universal language" was cringe, I'll give you that. You might remember the recent debate of JSON vs XML vs Markdown: https://x.com/_Anshuman_Jha/status/1953826030084665804 Anyways.
'Vaporware',, This is EXACTLY the problme I'm trying to solve here https://gunta.github.io/PRiority/ !! You know what vaporware actually is? Its when someone builds for 6 months in secret, launches with huge promises, then disappears with peoples money.
What I'm doing is literally the opposite - I'm asking 'will you pay for this?' BEFORE I build anything. If people say no (with their wallets), I build nothing. Zero vaporware created.
Think about it... I've collected hundreds of dollars in 24hrs for something that I explicitly tell people DOESN'T EXIST YET. Thats not vaporware - thats just pre-orders with honesty.
The difference? Traditional vaporware: Build promises → Take money → Never deliver My approach: Take commitments → Hit threshold or refund → Build only what's funded
'Buzzwords and hype' - You got me there. But you know what else is hype? Every successful product launch ever. The difference is whether you deliver after the hype or not.
The github bot? I could literally build it tonight if I wanted. Its not that complicated - parse PRs, check payment status, merge or don't merge. The tech is trivial. The innovation (if you can even call it that) is just asking 'who wants this enough to pay?' before writing a single line of code.
Your skepticism is totally valid btw. We've all seen too much BS in tech. But engagment is signal too - even you cared enough to comment. And honestly? I'd rather have skeptics keeping me honest than cheerleaders enabling vaporware.
The real test: if I don't deliver after taking money, come back and roast me. Screenshot this. I'll deserve it.