... friction. A sign that someone used our product to process something real and then moved on with their day. Has anyone else found that the most meaningful user actions in your product are the invisible ones? Comment from Mona Truong(@monatruong

... When someone journals on Murror, our AI doesn't just process text. It reads emotional weight. It picks up on patterns the user might not see yet -- the way their language shifts when they talk about work versus family, the recurring themes they circle back to every few weeks, the gradual change in tone that might signal something deeper. We built this because it makes the product better. The AI can ask more relevant questions, create more meaningful reflections ... ... know when to give space versus

... that the products people love most aren't the ones that perform for them they're the ones that help them perform for themselves. Anyone else building AI products where restraint is the feature, not the limitation? Comment from Mona Truong(@monatruong

... genuinely get value from the product. We're still figuring this out. Curious if anyone else is building something where success looks like less usage, not more. How are you telling that story? Comment from Nolan Vu(@nolan_vu): @monatruong_murror  Sure, I hope that the metrics can help founders like us to improve our product better off Comment from Holden Chase(@holden_chase): The trust piece resonates. Saying you don't want people dependent on the product feels ... ... they re uncovering new layers. The north star stops being sessions and starts being depth. Your resolution moments metric is the right instinct we just extended it: what comes after resolution is the next question worth asking. Comment from Mona

... need it less. Curious if other founders have faced this tension between engagement metrics and actual user wellbeing and how you navigated it. Comment from Sarah Butler(@sarah_butler1): Have other founders related to this story? Comment from Mona Truong(@monatruong

... move, especially for a SaaS that needs to be reliable. The combination of founder vision + AI speed + real engineering judgment is probably much stronger than trying to force AI to carry the whole product alone. Comment from Danny(@memsoph): @mona_kohlhaas  yes, yes... especially for the security. Comment from Mona

... When we first launched Murror, the number one feature request was always the same: "Can I talk to the AI?" Users wanted a chatbot. Something they could vent to, ask for advice, get instant feedback from. Every competitor had one. Every investor asked why we didn't. So we built it. The first month looked incredible. Session times tripled. Users came back more often. The engagement charts were exactly what you'd want to show in a board meeting. Then ... ... more helpful over time. Curious if other builders have faced this where the data clearly supported a feature, but your gut told you it was doing more harm than good. How did you decide? Comment from Mona

... technology stack we used to get there. Because honestly, most users do not care whether it was AI, an API call, a workflow, or a cron job underneath as long as the result is achieved. Comment from Mona Truong(@monatruong

... everyone, I'm Mona a marketer turned builder from Germany. Last summer, I conducted a survey among solopreneurs and small business owners. My goal was to understand their struggles when it comes to marketing. The results absolutely shocked me. 80% of those surveyed didn t know what their KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) were or what to do with them. In other words, four out of five business owners are essentially flying blind when it comes to their marketing efforts ... ... designed to be your trusted partner, stripping away the complexity and showing you exactly what works, so you can make informed decisions. If you have questions about it, don't hesitate to ask. :) Comment from Ayush Bera(@ayushbera): Hey Mona

... There's a pattern I keep noticing across the AI products that actually stick with people vs. the ones that get tried once and forgotten. The forgettable ones try to be impressive. They show off what the model can do -- generate faster, automate more, produce output at scale. And they're genuinely cool for about 15 minutes. The ones that last? They help you see something about yourself you couldn't see before. I've been thinking about this ... ... understanding is what remains. For anyone building in this space -- what's your experience? Are you designing your AI to produce things, or to reveal things? I'd love to hear how others are thinking about this. Comment from Mona

... what success looks like. Not every product should optimize for time spent. Curious if anyone else has experimented with outcome-based metrics instead of engagement. What did you measure, and how did it change your product decisions? Comment from Mona Truong(@monatruong

... months, our most requested feature at Murror was a chat function. Users wanted to talk to the AI the way they talk to a friend. It seemed obvious. Every competitor had it. Every feedback form mentioned it. So we built it. And within two weeks, our core metrics started dropping. Session length went down. Return rate went down. The thing users said they wanted was actively making the product worse. Here is what we discovered when we dug into ... ... expressed need and the right solution is where product intuition lives. Has anyone else experienced this? Built something users demanded only to find it hurt the product? Comment from Luca Ardito(@luca_ardito): This also shows why copying a competitor

... meant. The first is cheap and fast. The second is slow and uncomfortable. Almost every team defaults to the first because it feels like learning without requiring you to sit with someone who doesn't love what you built. Mona's experience is a good illustration. The analytics said "opens once, never returns." That's a signal, not an explanation. The explanation required five hours of real conversation. The reframe isn't "slow down." It's: choose the right learning ... ... build something called DevMarathon. It s basically a 72-hour constrained build process where clarity comes first, then speed. Funny enough, adding constraints made the outcomes way better than just shipping fast . Comment from Muhammed Gazali Ye ilmen(@mgy_programmer): @monatruong

... nothing compelling, the problem isn't your marketing. It's your product. What's been your experience marketing AI products? Has anyone else found that leading with the human outcome works better than leading with the tech? Comment from Mona Truong(@monatruong

... prioritize the others tomorrow. For me, the most important part is consistency just keeping these habits alive over time. What about you? Do you have a daily (non-work) checklist or personal habits you try to maintain? Comment from Mona Truong(@monatruong

... learning, and growing - one step at a time - wishing you a thoughtful year ahead. Have you written a letter to thank yourself for the year you ve just lived? Comment from Musa Molla(@musa_molla): This is beautifully reflective, Mona. What stands out most is the honesty , acknowledging fear, letting go of what no longer served you and choosing growth even when it was uncomfortable. Those are quiet decisions, but they compound. Wishing your 2025 efforts a lot of room ... ... take root and your 2026 self the confidence to keep choosing with intention. Comment from Nika(@busmark_w_nika): @monatruong

... same things: health, work, and family. These are the foundations that make everything else possible. As long as they re still there, they re worth being grateful for every single day. What are your three today? Comment from Mona Truong(@monatruong