[klubkard]

You will have very low buy-in from women for an app like this because scanning IDs doesn't take care of the biggest trust issue: blind dating means you can't filter out sleazeballs (or bad matches that aren't picked up by algorithms). Harassment, stalking and assault are significant factors here. And then there's the redpill guys who will neg you, the casually sexist guys who will talk over and dehumanize you, the guys who can't deal with their feelings who want you to be their therapist, the dudes who feel you owe them something for going to dinner.. on and on. Likes will "convert" to dates at higher rates (and can we talk about how gross it is to talk about human connection that way?) when users feel safe and confident. It's about reducing harassment and low-quality messages on the platform.

Why don't you build a straight dating app that incentivizes women to send likes and incentivizes men to hold back messaging but perk up their profiles? Like a digital Sadie Hawkins? Maybe men aren't able to send the first message but can only reply, for example. If you reduce the number of high-quantity, low-quality messages men send, women won't have to filter so much. And if you free up women's time and empower them to send likes, they can share the burden of initiation. Everyone wins when we stop trying to "play numbers" and focus on genuine matches with people we hope we will truly enjoy spending time with.

[alphagrep12345]

The things you mentioned completely makes sense. People won't be confident to go out on a dinner with a complete stranger. I think 'bumble' is more of a digital Saide Hawkins but that suffers from the problem of scouring through hundreds of profiles.

What if instead of a completely blind date, we just match two people based on parameters and let them talk? This is a bit like other apps where people talk to each other before meeting them in real life. (And you also get only 1 match a week to encourage people to take things seriously)