Build Community

Proof required

Submit: (1) a link to the community space (Discord, Slack, Circle, Meetup, or equivalent) — or for in-person communities, photos and event records; (2) a screenshot of the member list showing at least 10 members; (3) a screenshot showing at least 10 separate member contributions (messages, posts, event check-ins, or comments) from at least 5 different people in the first 3 weeks. Include a 1–2 sentence statement of what problem this community solves for its members.

What gets checked

• At least 10 distinct members with activity records — not counting the founder's own posts toward the 10-member activity count
• Activity from at least 5 different members — a community where 1–2 people post and 8 others are silent has not achieved active participation
• The community has a stated purpose that is specific enough to explain why this person would choose to join — 'a community for people interested in technology' is not specific; 'a community for first-time founders navigating their first hire' is

Common mistakes

• Counting silent joiners as members — a member who joined but never posted is a subscriber, not a community member; the active-participation standard is what separates a distribution list from a community
• Launching too broadly — a community for 'everyone who cares about the environment' cannot create genuine connection; a community focused on a specific shared challenge (e.g. urban composting in London) gives members an immediate reason to engage with each other
• Seeding all early content yourself — if the founder writes 80% of the first month's posts, the community has not demonstrated that members participate for their own reasons; step back early and see whether activity continues without your prompting

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Active member standard: check that the 10-member activity count comes from 5+ distinct members — a community where 2 people generate all activity is not a community in the GOVERNANCE sense
• Founder contribution check: if all 10 activity records in the submission are from the founder or a single other member, the milestone is not met; genuine active participation requires multiple members initiating content
• For in-person communities: event attendance records showing at least 10 named attendees with at least 2 repeat attendees in the first 3 weeks satisfy the standard — a one-off event with 10 attendees who never return does not
• Purpose statement quality: 'a place for people to connect' is not specific enough to assess whether the community has a clear identity; the stated purpose should explain both who the community is for and what specific need it addresses

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) a screenshot or export showing the activity record of your initial 10+ active members over the 60-day period — for each member: join date, number of contributions in weeks 1–4, and number of contributions in weeks 5–8; (2) a 200-word written reflection naming any members who went inactive, what you believe caused their disengagement, and what (if anything) you changed in response; (3) evidence of at least one community-initiated activity in weeks 5–8 that was not prompted by you — a member-started thread, member-organised sub-event, or member-written piece.

What gets checked

• At least 5 of the original 10 active members remained active (at least 1 contribution) in weeks 5–8 — a 50% 60-day retention rate is the GOVERNANCE floor for a self-sustaining community
• Attrition is documented honestly — the reflection must name specific members who went inactive, not describe attrition in vague aggregate terms
• At least one community-initiated activity in the second half of the period, not prompted by the founder — this is the first signal that the community has its own gravity

Common mistakes

• Relying solely on your own activity to sustain engagement — a community where the founder is the primary content producer in weeks 5–8 is a newsletter with replies, not a self-sustaining community; step back and observe whether members engage with each other
• Attributing all attrition to 'busy schedules' — honest GOVERNANCE-level reflection names what the community failed to offer that would have made returning worth the member's time
• Counting passive lurkers as 'retained' — a member who opens a notification but never posts, reacts, or attends has not actively retained; the retention standard requires at least one visible contribution

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Retention calculation: count active members as those with at least 1 visible contribution (message, post, event attendance, comment) in weeks 5–8; a member who read but never responded is not active
• Attrition reflection quality: a reflection that names 2 members who went silent and speculates on one probable reason per person is better than a generic 'members were busy' explanation — look for evidence that the founder has thought about why, not just who
• Member-initiated activity: a thread started by a non-founder member, an event proposed by a member, or a piece of content created by a member without founder prompting — any of these satisfy the self-initiation requirement; a response to a founder-started thread does not
• For in-person communities: event attendance records over 8 weeks showing repeat attendees (at least 5 of the M1 initial 10 attending at least 2 events) satisfy the retention standard

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) a community health summary covering month 1 and month 6 side by side — member count, weekly active members, and content contribution split (founder vs. non-founder); (2) evidence of at least 2 new members recruited by existing community members (not by the founder), documented by the recruiting member's invitation or reference; (3) a 300-word replaceability reflection: what would happen to this community if you stepped back for 4 weeks? Name specifically which members would sustain it and what activity would continue vs. what would stop.

What gets checked

• Non-founder contribution share has increased from month 1 to month 6 — if the founder still generates 80%+ of content at month 6, the community has not developed independent momentum
• At least 2 new members recruited by existing community members, documented with evidence — not claimed; the recruiting member's invitation message or referral note must be included
• Replaceability reflection is honest and specific — it names real members by name or role and distinguishes what the community would sustain from what would decline without the founder

Common mistakes

• Member count growth without engagement depth — a community that grew from 10 to 200 members but still has only 3–4 active contributors has spread recruitment effort without building the community value that would attract engaged members
• Overstating replaceability — a founder who writes '100% of members would carry it forward' has not engaged with the honest question; the GOVERNANCE standard requires naming what would likely stop, not just what would continue
• Recruiting new members primarily through paid promotion or institutional channels — the GOVERNANCE outcome requires organic or word-of-mouth growth; community members bringing in new members is the signal, not ad-driven acquisition

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Contribution split check: compare the founder's share of total content at month 1 vs. month 6 — if both are above 70%, the community has not developed independent momentum; ask the submitter to explain what would change this
• Organic recruitment evidence: a new member who says 'Sarah in this community told me to join' satisfies the referral requirement; a member who found the community through a promoted post or ad does not — check the recruitment record for source
• Replaceability reflection: a genuine reflection names 2–3 specific members and their likely roles without the founder; it does not simply claim the community is strong without specifying who would carry it
• At 6 months, some attrition from the M1 cohort is expected and fully acceptable — the question is whether the community has grown and developed independent contributors, not whether it retained every original member

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.