the system I’m trying to build is deeply technical
This sounds like a lack of "founder-product fit". Why should you be the one to build this thing if you have little domain knowledge? Maybe you should tackle a different domain where you have more knowledge (or could build knowledge quickly).
If the product I’m trying to build doesn’t exist yet (and can’t meaningfully exist without deep technical execution), is the move to prove distribution somewhere adjacent first? Should I be finding a sales position within a tech-startup?
Pay your tech people. It is truly that simple. If you can keep enough money flowing to pay people and keep the lights on, you proved your value. If you cannot, maybe you actually are just the idea guy.
You need to be asking yourself how you can make that happen. Sales is one way. Delivering investors is another. If you have your own money, spend it on the team. Because at the end of the day, you either deliver product or you deliver cash. If all you deliver is the idea, then expecting engineers to build it for free is unreasonable.
I don’t disagree with the premise. I think you're spot on actually.
Maybe the practical answer is what you’re implying: go work at a serious tech startup, build credibility, stack capital, earn trust, and come back stronger.
> For ~3 years I’ve been studying distributed systems, developer tooling, AI codegen, and an infra concept around intent-based architecture.
Just say you've been talking to AI, if that's what you've done. It feels highly unlikely that you've studied developer tooling for 3 years and struggle to implement your own tools.
When I say “studying,” I don't mean I’ve been secretly building distributed systems for 3 years.
I mean I’ve been reading whitepapers and architecture docs, trying to understand how these systems actually fit together and why they’re designed the way they are.
For me it was more of a "top of the iceberg" approach so that when I talk to a true engineer, I’m not speaking in vague product language.
You're spot on though about using AI to help this learning curve.
You need to bring something to the table that would make it worthwhile for an engineer to work for you instead of doing it themselves.
That something can be money, or connections, or prospective customers.
the system I’m trying to build is deeply technical
This sounds like a lack of "founder-product fit". Why should you be the one to build this thing if you have little domain knowledge? Maybe you should tackle a different domain where you have more knowledge (or could build knowledge quickly).
Non-technical founder? Can you line up investors or customers based on your pitch? That's pretty much the acid test.
Sales or money. Bring in customers or investors.
If the product I’m trying to build doesn’t exist yet (and can’t meaningfully exist without deep technical execution), is the move to prove distribution somewhere adjacent first? Should I be finding a sales position within a tech-startup?
(1) Proving your ability in sales would help your credibility
(2) There is still "finding investment"
It depends on the field, but it would be sufficient to demonstrate interest that someone is willing to buy the product.
Pay your tech people. It is truly that simple. If you can keep enough money flowing to pay people and keep the lights on, you proved your value. If you cannot, maybe you actually are just the idea guy.
You need to be asking yourself how you can make that happen. Sales is one way. Delivering investors is another. If you have your own money, spend it on the team. Because at the end of the day, you either deliver product or you deliver cash. If all you deliver is the idea, then expecting engineers to build it for free is unreasonable.
Thanks Dave for spending the time to write this.
I don’t disagree with the premise. I think you're spot on actually.
Maybe the practical answer is what you’re implying: go work at a serious tech startup, build credibility, stack capital, earn trust, and come back stronger.
Thanks again.
> For ~3 years I’ve been studying distributed systems, developer tooling, AI codegen, and an infra concept around intent-based architecture.
Just say you've been talking to AI, if that's what you've done. It feels highly unlikely that you've studied developer tooling for 3 years and struggle to implement your own tools.
When I say “studying,” I don't mean I’ve been secretly building distributed systems for 3 years.
I mean I’ve been reading whitepapers and architecture docs, trying to understand how these systems actually fit together and why they’re designed the way they are.
For me it was more of a "top of the iceberg" approach so that when I talk to a true engineer, I’m not speaking in vague product language.
You're spot on though about using AI to help this learning curve.
Thanks for the comment.