Dating apps have become enshittified and is why they are so ineffective. However, there is a huge opportunity for improvement. The core hypothesis my app is: a pay-per-mutual-match model that aligns user and app incentives. The mutual financial investment also makes users more likely to engage once they match.
My app doesn’t rely on complex algorithms or AI for matchmaking, as they perpetuate biases. Instead, I use a transparent system where users fill out a detailed questionnaire, and I match them based on their answers using SQL queries.
The app is built with open source software (Docker, Django, Flutter, and more!), so no vendor lock-in. This is the first app I ever made so it has been an incredible learning experience.
Ask me anything about my app, Qtpi, my tech stack, or my journey!
Yes, I’m open to changing the word pledge. I just call it that because functionally that is what it is. It’s like “proof of stake” if you’re familiar with cryptocurrency.
It’s 3 pledges which is 3 matches for as long as the account and my app is active. How long it takes to get a match depends on the user I guess. They don’t expire though.
Yes, that conversational opener is an issue. However, I’m thinking that because both users already paid to match and message each other, there’s already an investment and incentive to actually get to know each other. I think it’s some psychological phenomenon where it’s a sunk cost and you should try to get to know the person even if you only paid $1-$3. I think that in itself will help. The problem with free and numerous likes is that there are a lot of non-genuine likes and that creates apathy and noise.
Also, my app allows for a wide variety of open ended questions, and multiple choice, multiple answers. So if users fill out their profile (which I’m hoping to incentivize by showing results like those free fun online quizzes), I think there should be plenty to start the conversation.
I’m interested in what you think about this though. I appreciate the feedback and your questions!
I think getting people to pay anything will be a hard sell. But I also think “free” creates bad incentives. This is probably “better” but humans are really bad at understanding things.
I wonder if a tip / pay what you want model would have legs. Probably there’s too many freeloaders, sadly.
I would also feel pretty bad if I paid for the match and it fizzled out. Like we chat but don’t have a date, or realize there’s some deal breaker (eg: they’re moving away in a month, they smoke, they hate bisexuals, etc). Some of that would be covered by the profile, but some won’t, or won’t be noticed.
I might try it, based on what I saw with the first couple free matches. But it would also get expensive really quickly. Cheaper than subscriptions though. I think hinge wants like $50/mo for it’s top tier.
Like, do I pay $100 up front to have 100 likes in flight? Or do I bottleneck it to some smaller number and wait for the duds to expire? Wait for others to make the first move? The optimal strategy is unclear.
Sorry, sort of just rambling a bit.
Is NYC one of your target markets?
No problem with the “rant”! The discussion and your thoughts are highly appreciated.
Yes, free enables bad behaviors. I would be open to free and only tips/donations but I don’t think the business model would work. There are free dating apps like Firefly and Duolicious. However, the developers have to rely on donations and have no money for marketing. Additionally the unspoken problem is that bots and scammers will start spamming the network if the app gains enough traction. And those severely reduce the quality of the user network. By having paid matches, it greatly hinders bots by adding friction.
Yes, it could get expensive but I’d argue that it’d be more cost efficient and effective than any subscription app because my app allows for tons of filters and shows you who liked you already.
The strategy is up to the user! That is part of the design. If someone is really in a “dating phase” they can spend lots of money to get many simultaneous pledging/matching at a time. If someone is more just open to it but doesn’t want to invest a lot then they can pay for a few at a time.
NYC is not currently on the list. I’m going to start geographically dense and near where I am located (CA). But if it takes off, I’d definitely start in the cities.