Most startups don’t fail in a dramatic way. They fade out over months or years while founders keep telling themselves they’re close.
What actually kills them isn’t lack of effort or talent, it’s the absence of a clear stopping rule.
Without predefined criteria for success or failure, any small signal can be interpreted as progress.
A few users feel like traction. A polite conversation feels like demand. Activity replaces evidence, and “don’t quit” becomes a justification to stay stuck.
The founders who escape this earlier decide something uncomfortable upfront. They define what must happen within a fixed window for the idea to survive.
If it doesn’t happen, they walk away before sunk cost takes over.
I started applying this after realising how much time disappears between “almost working” and “quietly abandoned.”
That approach eventually became startupideasdb. com, built around kill criteria instead of inspiration.
If you’ve been “almost there” for longer than you planned, this may be worth reading sooner rather than later.
What actually kills them isn’t lack of effort or talent, it’s the absence of a clear stopping rule.
Without predefined criteria for success or failure, any small signal can be interpreted as progress.
A few users feel like traction. A polite conversation feels like demand. Activity replaces evidence, and “don’t quit” becomes a justification to stay stuck.
The founders who escape this earlier decide something uncomfortable upfront. They define what must happen within a fixed window for the idea to survive.
If it doesn’t happen, they walk away before sunk cost takes over.
I started applying this after realising how much time disappears between “almost working” and “quietly abandoned.”
That approach eventually became startupideasdb. com, built around kill criteria instead of inspiration.
If you’ve been “almost there” for longer than you planned, this may be worth reading sooner rather than later.