When I set the 12x12 challenge, twelve ventures or projects launched in 2026, it sounded clean on paper. One a month. Steady cadence. Easy to track. The reality has been messier than that, in the way most honest plans get messier once they meet actual weeks.
I want to write about that honestly, because the polished version of this story, "here are my twelve wins," would be less useful than the true version, which is that some months produced real launches, some produced groundwork that won't show results for a while, and at least one month produced mostly the recognition that I'd underestimated what a "launch" actually requires.
The pace isn't linear, and I had to stop expecting it to be
The biggest adjustment has been letting go of the idea that twelve ventures in twelve months means one clean launch every thirty days. Some ventures, like Giveable, needed sustained multi-month effort before there was anything real to show, brand partnerships, Stripe Connect setup, the actual mechanics of a marketplace that handles other people's money responsibly. Other efforts moved faster because they were smaller in scope by design, a piece of content infrastructure, a focused tool, something that could reasonably go from idea to live in a couple of weeks.
Averaging one a month was never going to describe the real shape of the year. The real shape is closer to a handful of larger builds running in parallel over months, interspersed with smaller, faster projects that fill in the gaps and keep momentum visible even when the bigger builds are in a quiet stretch.
What actually determines whether something counts
I've had to define, honestly with myself, what counts as a launch versus what counts as progress that isn't done yet. A venture that's live, has real users or customers, and does what it's supposed to do, that counts. A venture that's technically deployed but not truly ready for someone to depend on, that's progress, not a launch, and I try not to blur that line just to keep a count moving.
That distinction matters because the point of the challenge was never to hit a vanity number. It was to build the muscle of actually building and finishing things at a pace that most solo founders never attempt. Padding the count with things that aren't real would defeat the purpose before the year is even over.
The systems are what make the pace survivable
None of this would be remotely sustainable without the systems work I've written about elsewhere, the single source of truth for venture status, the automated workflows that remove repetitive overhead, the AI-assisted research and drafting that lets me move through the early stages of a new idea faster than I could alone. Without that infrastructure, twelve ventures in twelve months would have been a plan that quietly died in month three. With it, it's demanding but genuinely achievable.
What I'd tell someone attempting this
Don't expect a straight line. Expect a handful of slower, deeper builds and a handful of faster, lighter ones, and don't judge your pace against an average that was always more of a target than a real forecast. Build your systems before you need them, not while you're already behind. And be honest, publicly and with yourself, about what's actually launched versus what's still in progress. The challenge only means something if the count is real.
We're not at twelve yet, and I'm not going to pretend the back half of the year is a guaranteed victory lap. But the ventures that are live are real, the systems behind them are solid, and the pace, uneven as it's been, has taught me more about what building actually requires than a clean, linear plan ever would have.
The unglamorous middle of the year
The hardest stretch of a challenge like this isn't the beginning, when everything is new and motivating, or the end, when the finish line is close enough to sprint toward. It's the middle, when the initial energy has worn off and the finish line is still far enough away that it doesn't provide much pull. That's roughly where the year stands now, past the early momentum, not yet close enough to the deadline to feel urgent. The main thing keeping the pace up through this stretch isn't motivation. It's the systems that make showing up and making progress the default, whether or not a given week feels inspired.
What surprised me most about the pace
I expected the technical build of each venture to be the main variable in how fast something could launch. It's turned out to be a secondary variable most of the time. The actual pace-limiting factor has more often been the non-technical parts, brand relationships for Giveable, content and trust-building for FOA, the patience required to get something genuinely right instead of just shipped. That's not what I would have guessed going into the year, and it's changed how I estimate timelines for whatever's left. I now budget more time for the human, relational parts of a launch and less anxiety about the technical parts, because the technical parts have consistently been the ones that go faster than expected.
What this means for the second half
Going forward, I'm holding the target loosely enough to stay honest and tightly enough to stay motivated. Twelve is still the goal. But I'd rather end the year with ten genuinely real launches and two honest, well-documented efforts that didn't make it than claim twelve by loosening the definition of what counts. That standard is harder to hit and more useful to have set, and it's the version of this challenge I actually want to look back on.
Related Venture
Good At Scale Studio
Doing good, at scale.
