Quick thing before the idea: I used an AI (Claude) to help me with this. It helped me look up what happened to the sites that already tried something like it, and it wrote the text in this shape while I kept pushing it around until it said what I meant. The idea itself is mine. I've had the basic version of it in my head for years, and I'm happy to put it online for everyone. It belongs to whoever wants to take it: build it, change it, keep the good parts, throw away the rest.
The short version
It's a website for ideas and projects, but nothing gets sold whole. Everything is cut into pieces and you buy only the pieces you want. Every piece has a free preview and a paid part, and every piece has its own rights: exclusive or not, for how long, for which country, who gets what share. Companies can post what they need, so it's not just people throwing ideas into the void. And anyone can offer their own version of a piece that already exists.
Yes, it's an idea for a site for ideas. I know.
An example with a drink
Say somebody has a project for a low-sugar sparkling drink made with fermented tea and citrus. On most sites that's one thing: you buy it or you don't. Here it's a pile of pieces that sit inside each other, like sets in math class. The whole project contains a few groups (product, brand, market, legal), and some pieces belong to two groups at once. The packaging is both product and brand. The cost model is both product and market. And some pieces need others first: you can't price anything without the recipe.
Something like this (all made up):
- the recipe (needs nothing)
- the production process, from a lab to 1,000 liters (needs the recipe)
- shelf life and stability tests (needs both)
- the packaging, specs plus design (needs the recipe; it's product and brand)
- the name, plus a check that nobody owns it already
- the visual identity (needs the name)
- who buys it, where, at what price
- the cost and pricing model (needs recipe, process and packaging; it's product and market)
- the launch plan, the label compliance, the license contract, etc.
Now three buyers. Someone with a bar buys just the recipe, non-exclusive, for like 30 euros, and nobody stops anyone else from buying it too. A small startup that already sells drinks buys the whole product pack (recipe, process, tests, packaging) with exclusivity in Europe for three years, for a few thousand. A big company posts a request ("we want a low-sugar drink with Italian ingredients, worldwide exclusive") and buys everything, plus a few hours of calls with the people who made it. Same project, three different purchases.
The same thing with a video game
A 2D puzzle-platformer where you melt and cool glass to change the world. Call it Vetro. The pieces: the core mechanic (the melting and cooling rules), a plan for 30 levels (needs the mechanic), difficulty tables, art direction, a piece about how the art makes the glass states readable (design and art at once), a playable prototype, playtest data from 20 people (tech and market at once), market notes, etc.
An indie developer buys the mechanic and the levels for 40 euros and does the art herself. A publisher posts "2D puzzle, 6-8 hours, small budget, cozy audience" and buys the lot.
Games show something the site would have to be honest about: rules and mechanics usually aren't protected by copyright, only the code, the art and the text are. So the mechanic alone is worth very little. What you'd really be selling is the package, the prototype, the test data and the time you save the buyer.
The free part and the paid part
Every piece has a public preview, and whoever made it decides how much goes in. It could be a title and one line of result ("stable for 9 months at 20 degrees"), or half the explanation. The rest sits behind a door. To open it you register and accept written terms ("if you use this, you pay according to the license"), your copy is marked as yours, and every access is logged. Every upload also gets a timestamp.
This is the old problem: to decide if you want to buy an idea you have to know it, and once you know it you don't need to buy it. A preview that says what a piece does without saying how is the best compromise I could think of.
The legal side, as far as I understood it (I'm not a lawyer, and neither is the AI): an idea by itself isn't property. But in Italy and the EU, information that's secret, valuable because it's secret, and protected by reasonable measures can count as a trade secret. The paid part could be that. The public preview can't, obviously, since anyone can read it. And nothing stops two people from having the same idea on their own. So the site shouldn't tell anyone "your idea is protected". It should say: your package is covered by contract and trade secret rules while it's behind the door, and you can prove when you made it.
Rights per piece
Each piece says what you can do with it. Non-exclusive: cheap, many people can buy it. Exclusive: one buyer, for a country and a period, much more expensive. If somebody already bought it non-exclusive, the exclusive price gets recalculated. When a piece has more than one author, the split is written down before it goes on sale (60/40, whatever), so nobody argues afterwards. Quirky had "influence points" that the company itself decided, and that's the kind of thing I'd want to avoid.
Companies ask too
Companies can post requests: we need this, this budget, exclusive or not. The part I can't skip is how the free-floating ideas meet the requests. I think it takes an algorithm inside the site, not a chatbot, something like what TikTok does: a new piece gets shown first to a small group of companies whose requests look close to it, and if they open it, save it or write, it goes to more. It works both ways. The company sees the pieces that fit its request, and the creator gets a message like "there's an open request your project covers at 80%". The same system would see the gaps (requests nobody answers, pieces nobody asks for), and that's information somebody would pay for.
But TikTok learns from billions of taps and this site would have a handful of purchases. At the start a person has to match things by hand, and the algorithm only starts learning after hundreds of deals. Also, which pieces a company looks at tells you its strategy, so creators would only see anonymous numbers ("three beverage companies opened your preview").
Anyone can answer with a piece
This is the part I like most, and the newest. Anyone registered can answer a project or a request with a piece of their own. "I'll do this piece, but you can do it too, let's see who does it better and cheaper."
I think it's a good idea with one change: it shouldn't be a race to the bottom on price. Design contest sites have a bad reputation because only the winner gets paid, and critics say that most entrants put in little effort since they probably won't win. Here the losers wouldn't be unpaid by default, because versions are sold as listings (several can sell) and not as a tournament with one prize. Quality first (reviews, scores), price second, with a price range per piece.
There's real data on this. A study of 9,661 software contests found that more competitors means less effort from each one, but also a higher chance that somebody comes up with something exceptional. The first effect wins for predictable problems (a cost model, label compliance) and the second wins for uncertain, creative ones (a name, a visual identity, a game mechanic, a story). So contests for the creative pieces, a fixed price or a bounty for the routine ones.
A few rules I'd add. The project owner chooses if the project is open to anyone or invite-only, and other people's pieces enter the official project only if the owner accepts them, otherwise they stay as alternative versions (like pull requests). If you start from somebody else's public preview you say so, and a fixed share goes to the original author; independent versions don't owe anything. New accounts have a limit on how many pieces they can submit, maybe a small deposit, etc. I also think this could spread through invitations, because a piece often needs two skills (a technician and a designer) so you invite somebody. That one is a guess.
Why I think the old ones died
Here's what I found about the ones that tried something close, with the AI doing most of the digging.
Quirky (2009 to 2015). People sent in product ideas, the community voted and helped, and Quirky built and sold the products itself, giving the community a cut. It raised about 185 million dollars, got over a million members and over a hundred products, and went bankrupt in 2015. From what I could find, the problem wasn't the idea part, it was the factory part: physical products are expensive and risky, it launched too many and didn't improve the ones that worked, and people clicking like on an invention isn't the same as paying for it. Some people who analyzed it say it should have stayed an ideas platform with no manufacturing, which is what this would be. I don't know if that part alone could have paid for itself.
yet2 (1999 to 2018). An online marketplace for technology licenses between big companies. They closed the marketplace around the end of 2018, and wrote that in 20 years they never saw a purely online IP marketplace stay profitable. What worked for them was starting from what companies need and pulling solutions in, with human service on top.
InnoCentive (2001, sold to Wazoku in 2020). The opposite direction: the company posts a problem and a prize, anyone answers, the company picks the winner and the rights pass by contract. It works because the buyer defines the need, the price is known up front and the rights are settled in advance. It's also a small outfit.
The Black List. A site for screenplays. Writers pay to host a script and get it rated by paid readers, a closed community of industry people can read it, writers keep all their rights and the site takes no cut (that was the 2012 version, prices may be different now). It's the closest thing I found to "pay to be seen, get checked, keep your rights".
And the Hollywood story. In 1956 a man told his story to a director's secretary over the phone, she said they'd pay if they used it, and later a film came out that he said was his story. The California Supreme Court said an idea isn't property but you can be owed money through a contract implied by what people did. Studios built walls after that: they refuse to read anything unsolicited, they take scripts only through agents, they make you sign releases. This site would be a bit like the agent: you see nothing before accepting written terms, with logs and timestamps. The contract does the work here, more than the idea does.
What I'm afraid of
Things I know could kill it:
- People meet on the site and then take the deal to WhatsApp so nobody pays the fee. Possible answers: payment held until both sides are happy, contracts and rights records that only count if the deal stays on the site, reputation that lives only there, updates after buying.
- Fake companies that sign up just to read and copy. Verify companies, unlock more as the commitment grows, and give each buyer a slightly different copy so a leak can be traced.
- Payments, tax and identity. Moving money between third parties in the EU needs a licensed payment provider, and I have no idea about the tax part. The access logs are personal data too.
- Nobody buys. This is the one that matters. A small test would be one niche, a few dozen creators, three to five companies, matching by hand, a spreadsheet and payment links. If nobody pays even 30 euros for a piece, stop.
What I don't know
Whether companies would really pay for this. Whether people would spend time on a piece they might sell once. How much of the legal part would survive a real lawyer. The numbers and the examples above are made up. And I couldn't find any marketplace of this kind that stayed profitable on its own, so the base rate is bad and I know it.
What I'd like from you
I'm not going to start a company. If somebody wants to build even a tiny hand-made version, or a real one, go ahead, it's yours. If you've run a marketplace and you can tell me why this dies, that helps too. Wherever you found this, write to me there.
If you want to read the old stories