How to decide between building in public and stealth (pros and cons)

You’ve got an idea you can’t stop thinking about. Part of you wants to share the journey, post weekly updates, and let the internet hold you accountable. Another part worries about being copied, being judged too early, or realizing publicly that the idea is not as strong as you hoped. Almost every early-stage founder reaches this crossroads, often much earlier than expected.

To write this guide, we reviewed founder essays, podcast interviews, and public retrospectives from companies that intentionally chose one path or the other. We looked closely at documented examples from founders like Joel Gascoigne at Buffer, Pieter Levels at Nomad List, Patrick and John Collison at Stripe, and Brian Chesky at Airbnb, then cross-checked what they said with what actually happened next. The goal was not to declare a winner, but to understand when each approach works and why.

In this article, we’ll unpack what building in public and building in stealth really mean, the real advantages and drawbacks of each, and how to choose the approach that fits your stage, market, and temperament right now.

Why this decision matters early

In the pre-seed and seed stages, your scarcest resources are focus, energy, and credibility. How you choose to build shapes how quickly you learn, who discovers you, and how momentum compounds. Over the next 60 to 90 days, most founders are trying to validate a problem, ship something tangible, and build enough confidence to justify the next move, whether that is raising capital, leaving a job, or doubling down.

Choosing the wrong approach will not kill a company, but it can slow learning or add unnecessary pressure. Building in public can create leverage and accountability, but it can also fragment attention. Building in stealth can protect focus, but it can also isolate you from reality. The right choice depends far more on context than on philosophy.

What building in public actually means

Building in public means sharing progress, decisions, and lessons as you go. This might include talking openly about revenue, failed experiments, roadmap changes, or what you are struggling with, usually on platforms like X, LinkedIn, blogs, or newsletters.

Joel Gascoigne documented Buffer’s early journey by publishing transparent revenue numbers and growth experiments. In his early writing, he explained that transparency was not a marketing trick but a forcing function. It attracted early users, future teammates, and press while keeping the team honest about progress. Buffer moved from idea to meaningful revenue largely in the open, and those updates became a durable acquisition channel.

At its best, building in public is not constant broadcasting. It is selective sharing that accelerates learning and trust.

The upsides of building in public

One of the biggest advantages is speed of feedback. When you share what you are building, people respond quickly with what feels confusing, broken, or unnecessary. Pieter Levels has written about launching rough versions of products like Nomad List and Remote OK publicly, then iterating based on immediate reactions from real users. That feedback arrived before months of overbuilding could creep in.

Another benefit is early distribution. Public progress creates an audience before you need one. By the time you launch, you are not starting from zero. Gascoigne has noted that Buffer’s blog drove early signups long before paid acquisition made sense, lowering early customer acquisition costs.

There is also the accountability effect. Publicly saying you will ship something by a certain date creates productive discomfort. Many solo founders report shipping faster simply because there is no easy way to quietly slip deadlines.

Finally, transparency builds trust. When people see how you think and work, they are more likely to trust you with their attention, their money, or their referrals, even if the product is still rough.

The downsides of building in public

The biggest risk is distraction. Sharing can quietly turn into performing. Some founders start optimizing for likes and replies instead of shipping product, spending hours crafting updates rather than solving problems. This failure mode is especially common for first-time founders.

There is also the risk of premature judgment. Early ideas are fragile. Public feedback can be noisy, contradictory, or discouraging. If your conviction is still forming, too many outside opinions can push you off course.

Another downside is signaling before substance. Public hype without a solid product can create pressure you are not ready to handle. Some founders end up trapped by expectations they set too early.

Finally, there is copy anxiety. While outright cloning is less common than feared, visibility does make it easier for others to see what you are doing. This matters more in crowded markets where execution is straightforward and differentiation is thin.

What building in stealth actually means

Building in stealth means limiting what you share publicly while you validate, build, and refine. It does not mean avoiding feedback. It usually means relying on private conversations with users, advisors, and early customers rather than broadcasting progress widely.

The Collison brothers built Stripe quietly at first, working closely with a small group of developers and companies. In later interviews, they have explained that early progress came from deep, private feedback loops rather than public storytelling. The product matured before attention arrived.

Stealth is not secrecy for its own sake. It is controlled exposure.

The upsides of building in stealth

The clearest benefit is focus. Fewer outside opinions mean fewer distractions. Founders who struggle with context switching often do better in a quieter environment early on.

Stealth can also provide psychological safety. You can change direction without explaining yourself to an audience. This matters when you expect major pivots or are still unsure what success should look like.

Another benefit is narrative clarity later. By waiting to go public, you can present a clearer story once you truly understand the problem and solution.

Stealth also filters feedback. Input comes primarily from people who actually use or buy the product, not from observers. Brian Chesky has spoken about how Airbnb’s early breakthroughs came from direct, private observation of hosts rather than public commentary.

The downsides of building in stealth

The most obvious drawback is slower external feedback. Without public signals, you rely entirely on outreach and interviews. If you are not disciplined about this, you risk building inside an echo chamber.

Stealth also delays distribution. When you finally launch, you may still be invisible. In fast-moving or crowded spaces, that delay can matter.

There is also less built-in accountability. It is easier to slip deadlines when no one is watching. Some founders stall simply because there is no external pressure to ship.

Finally, stealth reduces surface area for luck. Public work attracts unexpected partners, hires, and customers. Staying quiet limits those opportunities.

How to decide using context, not ideology

Start by looking at your market. If your advantage comes from brand, trust, or community, public building often helps. If your advantage comes from complex execution, infrastructure, or regulation, stealth usually makes more sense early.

Next, assess your conviction. If you are still exploring the problem, stealth protects your ability to pivot freely. If you are confident in the problem and want feedback on execution, public sharing can accelerate learning.

You should also be honest about your personality. Some founders thrive on external pressure, while others shut down under it. Joel Gascoigne has said transparency energized him, while many equally successful founders prefer quiet progress. Neither approach is inherently better.

Team size matters too. Solo founders often benefit more from public accountability, while teams with strong internal cadence may not need it.

Finally, remember that you can separate users from spectators. You can stay quiet publicly while being extremely open with customers. This hybrid approach is more common than people admit.

The hybrid path most founders actually take

Many successful startups start in stealth and then selectively go public. Airbnb did not narrate its way to product market fit, but it embraced storytelling once the core experience worked. Stripe focused privately on developers before expanding its public presence.

In practice, a hybrid approach often means doing deep private user work, sharing lessons publicly rather than half-baked promises, revealing metrics only when they reinforce trust, and staying quiet when focus matters more than attention.

Common mistakes founders make

One common mistake is treating building in public as marketing instead of learning. Another is confusing stealth with isolation and skipping real feedback entirely. Some founders switch strategies every few weeks based on mood rather than evidence. Others obsess over copying when irrelevance is the bigger threat.

What to do this week

This week, write down the two biggest risks you face right now, whether they are slow learning or constant distraction. Decide what kind of feedback you need over the next 30 days. Choose whether you will share publicly on one channel or stay quiet, but make the choice intentional. Define what you are not ready to share yet. Commit either to consistent public updates or to full focus without posting. Schedule several private conversations with real users regardless of your choice, and set a reminder to revisit this decision in 60 days based on results, not feelings.

Final thoughts

Building in public versus building in stealth is not a moral stance. It is a tactical choice. The strongest founders treat visibility as a tool, not an identity. If sharing helps you learn faster, ship more consistently, and stay grounded, lean into it. If quiet focus helps you think clearly and build something real, protect it. What matters is not who is watching, but whether you are moving closer to something people genuinely want.