Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
79 lines (53 loc) · 4.74 KB

File metadata and controls

79 lines (53 loc) · 4.74 KB

Ideal Customer Profile — Scent / tindalabs.dev

Primary ICP: Mid-Market SaaS — The Abused Growth Stage

Who they are

A SaaS company in the 50–500 employee range, typically Series A or B, experiencing measurable user fraud as a side effect of their own growth. They have at least one backend engineer and a frontend team. They are developer-led — buying decisions are made or heavily influenced by engineering, not procurement.

The pain they feel acutely

  • Free tier abuse: Throwaway accounts, unlimited trial extensions via re-registration, credit card testing
  • Account takeover (ATO): Credential stuffing from breached databases, session hijacking, bot-assisted logins
  • Bot signups inflating MAU metrics: Vanity numbers that distort fundraising conversations and product analytics
  • Coordinated abuse: Multiple "distinct" users that are clearly the same entity — same device, different emails

Why they haven't solved it yet

  • Sift / Sardine / Kount are priced out: Entry pricing starts at $1,000–3,000/month with long procurement cycles. A 200-person SaaS cannot justify this until fraud is already a fire.
  • FingerprintJS Pro is a black box: Gives a visitor ID but no explainability, no drift tracking, no confidence score. When legal asks "what are you collecting?", there's no clean answer.
  • Rolling their own is painful: Browser fingerprinting looks simple until you hit VPN changes, private mode, browser updates, and iOS Safari's aggressive ITP.
  • Their current stack has no identity layer: PostHog for analytics, Sentry for errors, no tool bridging sessions to persistent identity.

What they need from a solution

  • Deployable in a sprint by one developer (not a 3-month vendor onboarding)
  • Explainable: legal and security teams can audit exactly what signals are collected and why
  • Self-hostable: GDPR/data residency concerns are real — they need first-party data ownership
  • Composable: plugs into existing analytics / observability stack, not a replacement
  • Honest pricing: usage-based, scales with their growth, no surprise overages

Firmographics

Attribute Value
Size 50–500 employees
Stage Series A / B, or bootstrapped with significant revenue
MAU 5k–500k (below this, fraud is not painful; above, they can afford Sift)
Market B2B SaaS, developer tools, fintech-adjacent, marketplace, API products
Region EU/UK or US with privacy-conscious legal teams
Stack Web-first (React/Vue/Next.js), Node.js or any backend with a REST API

The buyer persona

Primary: Senior backend or full-stack engineer, or a founding engineer. Evaluates OSS projects on GitHub before booking a demo. Will self-host first, upgrade to cloud if it saves time.

Secondary: Head of Engineering or CTO at the 50–200 employee range who owns the security posture and needs something auditable to show the board.

Economic buyer: Same people, usually. Procurement is lightweight at this stage.

Jobs to be done

  1. "I need to know if the person creating their 5th free trial account is the same device as the previous four."
  2. "I need a risk signal I can feed into my login flow without exposing my users' data to a third party."
  3. "I need to tell my legal team exactly what we're collecting and why, with a config that limits collection to what's necessary."
  4. "I need this to keep working when users clear cookies, switch browsers, or use a VPN."

What success looks like for them

  • Drop in free tier abuse rate within 30 days of deployment
  • Confidence score integrated into login/signup risk logic within one sprint
  • Zero new compliance incidents related to identity tracking
  • Observatory UI that a non-technical founder can read to understand their fraud profile

Secondary ICP: Privacy-Conscious Enterprise

Larger companies (500+ employees) in regulated industries — finance, healthcare, legal tech — who are being asked by their compliance team to replace an existing black-box fingerprinting vendor with something auditable. They are not primarily fighting fraud; they need an explainable, self-hosted alternative to FingerprintJS Pro that their DPO will sign off on.

The sale is longer, the contract is larger, and the feature priority is different: Persistence Policies, audit logs, SSO, and data residency are table stakes. This ICP becomes relevant in Phase 5+ once the core product is stable.


Anti-ICP: Who Scent is not for

  • Consumer apps building surveillance-grade tracking (ethical misalignment, legal exposure)
  • Teams who want a drop-in FingerprintJS replacement with zero configuration
  • Companies whose fraud problem is primarily payment fraud (they need Stripe Radar or a dedicated fraud suite)
  • Solo developers with <1k MAU (the pain is not real yet)