I Built an Internet Court. Now I'm Trying to Find Out If Anyone Actually Wants It.

A couple of weeks ago, I had a domain named loopproof.me, which I owned but had no product to offer. I decided to utilize Claude Code, providing it with an unconventional instruction: "Build anything you want. Here's the domain. It's already registered and mine." I didn't specify a startup idea or a detailed product, I simply allowed the AI to generate a concept.

The AI returned with the notion of an Internet Court. The concept was straightforward: when individuals had an argument, they would file the argument as a trial on the platform. Other users would then vote in favor or against the argument, and the votes would determine the verdict. Initially, I found the idea absurd, but I considered the potential of actually creating it.

The result was a functioning app. The process involved someone submitting a case outlining their perspective in an argument, which would then be accessible via a public URL. Users could read the case and cast their vote in favor or against. The verdict would update in real-time, displaying the vote count. Additional features included authentication, database management, reporting, comments, real-time updates, and subscription management.

The technology stack consisted of Next.js, React, and Supabase, with PayPal managing the paid membership aspect. One crucial principle guided the development: avoid falsifying activity. This meant no fabricated votes, fake users, or implying popularity when there was none. If a case had zero votes, it remained at zero votes.

Upon launching the platform, I anticipated users would engage with it. However, the response was disappointing. Although people questioned the idea's merits, the lack of interest was disheartening. I questioned whether the concept was flawed, if the product failed to address a significant problem, or if my communication was inadequate.

Perhaps the audience needed to witness an intriguing case to comprehend the value proposition. Alternatively, perhaps I simply lacked effective distribution. At this stage, my primary objective was to identify users, not to add more features.

The fundamental question now is: what differentiates this platform from existing communication channels such as group chats, Reddit, Discord, or straightforward arguments among friends? The potential lies in transforming an argument into a link, allowing users to engage in a more structured manner. Instead of an endless exchange of viewpoints ending in frustration, users could file a case and let others vote.

This approach could streamline discussions, making them more efficient and objective. However, the question remains: would others find this utility, or was this merely a personal fascination borne from the creation process?

Having developed the project independently, I realized that building something is not equivalent to proving demand. While I successfully constructed the product, it didn't guarantee that anyone would find it useful. This realization has prompted a new experiment: I remain committed to the project, refraining from abandoning it. I aim to understand if others would actually utilize this platform.

As I and my friend delve into a trivial argument, who is wrong? We could bypass further debate and let a virtual court settle the matter. This scenario might address certain needs, or it could be nothing more than a clever gimmick. I genuinely seek your perspective on this matter.