Validating a product to reduce context loss at work — looking for early users & growth insights
I’m building OMNEX, an early-stage workspace born from a simple observation:
Teams don’t lose time because they lack tools — they lose time because context is fragmented across them.
Messages live in chat, decisions in threads, tasks in project tools, files elsewhere. After interruptions (handoffs, weekends, role switches), people spend real time reconstructing what’s going on.
OMNEX is testing a different approach:
keep conversations, tasks, decisions, meetings, and files anchored to the work itself, so returning to a task doesn’t require context rebuilding.
What I’m validating right now
• When users return unprompted to the product after interruptions
• Which moments create pull: async handoffs, late joins, or mid-stream task pickup
• Whether reduced context reconstruction translates into measurable retention
Current state
• Live beta (no pricing, no credit card)
• Early users from small teams → enterprise environments
• Actively iterating based on usage + direct feedback
What I’m looking for
• People willing to try it in real workflows
• Growth-minded feedback: what drives retention vs novelty?
• Brutally honest takes on positioning and wedge
If you’re interested in testing or poking holes in the thesis:
👉 https://omnex.tech
Happy to share learnings openly as this evolves.
This is a clear problem, but I like that you’re testing when the pull happens, not just whether the idea sounds good.
One thing we’ve noticed with similar products is that early feedback can look positive even when the distribution path isn’t clear yet. Where are your early users coming from right now - existing network, communities, or direct outreach?
Right now our early users are coming from founder/operator communities + direct outreach, not a single “distribution channel” yet. Most signups have come from Indie Hackers + LinkedIn groups, plus a small amount from my personal network and 1:1 DMs to people who clearly feel the pain
This totally makes sense. It mirrors what we often see early on.
Curious what you’re watching next to decide whether this becomes a repeatable channel vs staying founder-driven, or if any one source starts compounding on its own?
Right now I’m watching conversion quality by source, not just raw signups — specifically:
(1) % of people who reach “first useful moment” (create a workspace + capture a task/decision) within 10 minutes,
(2) next-day return rate (do they come back unprompted?), and
(3) referrals/invites (do they add a teammate?).
If one community/source consistently drives higher “activation + return + invites” for 2–3 weeks, that’s the channel we’ll double down on and build repeatable content/outreach around. Until then, it’s founder-driven by design while we tighten the wedge.
This is a solid way to look at it - especially tying activation + return back to source.
One pattern we’ve seen help at this stage is doubling down on one narrow content angle + lightweight outreach, then watching whether that starts compounding (people referencing it, replying faster, or coming inbound) vs everything staying founder-driven.
If helpful, would you be open to swapping notes on what’s worked vs stalled for us as we’ve tried to turn content + outreach into something repeatable beyond founder-driven?