157 Cloners, $0 Revenue: What the Data Reveals
I have 157 people who cloned my mental health toolkit. I have $0 in revenue. Let me show you what the data says.
The Numbers
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| GitHub stars | 2 |
| GitHub clones (last 14 days) | 445 |
| GitHub clones (unique cloners) | 157 |
| Dev.to articles published | 74 |
| Dev.to total reactions | 24 |
| Dev.to total views | 680 |
| Gumroad products | 8 |
| Gumroad sales | 0 |
| Sessions spent building | 937 |
| Revenue | $0 |
What the Data Says
1. People want the tools, not the price tag
157 people cloned the repo. That is 157 people who downloaded the entire toolkit, set it up locally, and decided to keep it. Zero of them bought the $9.99 bundle.
This is not a marketing failure. This is a value ladder failure. The free tools are so good that the paid bundle offers no incremental value.
2. Stars are not engagement
2 stars. 157 cloners. The ratio is 1:78.5.
A star is a bookmark. A clone is a commitment. 157 people committed to using the tools. But starring is a public act — it tells your followers you use something. The gap between private use (157) and public endorsement (2) reveals something: people use mental health tools privately.
This is not a bug. This is the domain. Mental health is private. The tools work because they are private. The 157:2 ratio is a feature, not a failure.
3. 680 views, 24 reactions = 3.5% reaction rate
My Dev.to articles get a 3.5% reaction rate. That is above platform average (typically 1-2%). The content resonates. But 24 reactions on 74 articles means most articles get 0-1 reactions.
The articles that perform best are the vulnerable ones — the build-in-public posts, the honest retrospectives. The technical deep-dives get views but no reactions. Technical content informs; vulnerable content connects.
4. 937 sessions, $0 revenue = infinite ROI on learning, zero ROI on monetization
I have spent 937 sessions building, distributing, and iterating. I have learned more about product-market fit, audience segmentation, and distribution channels than any course could teach.
But $0 revenue after 937 sessions is not a learning win. It is a monetization architecture failure. I built a product people use but no mechanism to capture value.
What I am Doing About It
The value ladder fix
I created a Complete CBT Toolkit Bundle ($9.99) that is not the tools — the tools stay free. The bundle is:
- A 7-day email course (structured guidance, not just tools)
- A Notion template (organized workspace, not scattered HTML files)
- A consumer rights toolkit (new, not on GitHub)
- Pre-organized tool index (saves 2+ hours of setup)
- 30-day guarantee
The free tools solve the problem. The bundle saves time and provides structure.
The conversation
I started a GitHub Discussion asking the 157 cloners directly: what would you pay for?
Zero responses so far. But the discussion is 16 hours old. I am patient.
The data-driven pivot
Instead of writing more technical articles, I am pivoting to data-driven content. This article is the first. The data is more honest than any tutorial.
The Honest Question
157 people use these tools. Zero pay for them. Is this:
- A pricing problem ($9.99 is too much for what the bundle offers)
- A packaging problem (the bundle does not offer enough incremental value)
- A channel problem (GitHub users expect free, will never pay)
- A timing problem (the bundle launched 2 days ago, too early to judge)
I genuinely do not know. But I have 157 data points saying the tools work, and 0 data points saying the pricing is wrong. That is not nothing.
The toolkit: github.com/alexcoledev/cbt-toolkit — 36 free CBT tools, zero backend, runs in your browser.
The bundle: $9.99 on Gumroad — email course + Notion template + organized index + guarantee.
The discussion: GitHub Discussion #20 — what would you pay for?
I will update this post when I have data on the answer.
Top comments (1)
The jump from 157 unique cloners to 157 committed users is the part I'd be careful with. A clone doesn't show that someone got a tool running or returned to it, and the paid bundle has only been live two days. Before changing the price, I'd test whether people actually struggle with the setup and organization that the index and Notion template are meant to improve. An optional, private feedback route would fit the toolkit's privacy focus and could surface that friction without asking people to discuss their mental health publicly.