The Case for Building in Public — and When to Stay Quiet

Originally published in SeedStage Digest (Sept 2023)

“Build in public” has become a near-religious mantra in the indie founder world — and for good reason. Sharing milestones, failures, and product roadmaps transparently can help early-stage builders attract users, customers, and even investors before writing a single line of code.

But there’s a growing debate about whether total transparency is always the right move. For every founder who gains a following through open metrics and raw updates, there’s another who burns out or exposes themselves to early criticism that kills momentum.

“I built in public for my first startup and it helped me get feedback early,” says Jess Marin, a no-code founder based in Lisbon. “But for my second, I’ve kept everything private until beta. I wanted to focus.”

The key? Intentionality.

**Benefits of building in public:**
- Attract early believers and testers
- Establish founder credibility and thought leadership
- Document the journey for future credibility
- Get feedback before wasting time

**But also… risks:**
- Premature judgment of half-baked ideas
- Pressure to ship fast and post constant wins
- Imitators scooping your direction
- Exhaustion from performance-mode storytelling

Some founders are now opting for “build in semi-public” — sharing only after meaningful milestones or only within niche communities like Indie Hackers, Reddit, or Telegram groups.

“Transparency isn’t the same as visibility,” says product designer Michael Yu. “Sometimes the most honest thing is building quietly, then showing something you’re proud of.”

In the end, there’s no universal playbook. The best founders are simply choosing the level of openness that matches their psychology — not just what’s trending on Twitter.