# Ryan Delluca, Independent B2B Data Operator (formerly ZoomInfo, AE + Solutions) — read of vertical-b2b-prospect-lists-compliance, June 26 2026

> 9 years selling data to mid-market companies, left ZoomInfo 14 months ago to build something of my own, currently doing consulting to pay bills while I evaluate whether to actually launch a niche data product.

## How I got here

Someone in the Indie Hackers Slack posted a link with the comment "this studio is doing something weird with the honesty angle, check the pricing section." I clicked on a Thursday afternoon. I was already in a tab comparing SIC-code enrichment APIs for a side project I've been noodling on, so the vertical angle landed in a genuinely receptive moment. I was not searching for this. I was not running an ad campaign.

## What I clicked first

The hero line "Compliance-mined intelligence for service providers" made me sit up. That's a specific claim. Most data companies say "verified" or "accurate" or "real-time" and mean nothing. Compliance records are a legitimate and genuinely underutilized source. I've pitched against companies trying to do exactly this and watched them fail to explain it. So I kept reading.

Then I hit "Real decision-makers. Real buying signals. Real ROI." and I physically rolled my eyes. That's three empty containers in a row. Every data vendor on earth says this. You had me at compliance records. You lost me at the triple-real sentence.

## Where I paused

The disclosure section stopped me cold. "Honest disclosure: we don't have live customers on this idea yet. We shipped the strategy package; you ship the customer conversations."

I read that twice. Maybe three times. Because the first 60% of this page is written like a product that exists and is shipping data today. "New prospects arrive every Monday. Signal decay is real." The CTA says "Get Your First List." I was about to wonder why I hadn't heard of these people before. Then the whole frame flips and it's not a data service at all. It's a kit to BUILD a data service.

That's a strange experience. Not necessarily a bad one, but strange.

## What I distrusted

The financial numbers are the strangest part of the pitch AND the most honest part of the pitch, simultaneously. Year-1 take-home of negative $21,000 and a 1-in-8 shot at meaningful success. Financial upside scored 1 out of 10. These are brutal numbers to put on your own product page, and I actually respect the transparency. But it creates a real problem: if YOU are telling me this thing is financially unattractive, what am I paying $99 for?

The "speed to MVP: 3/10" also jumped out. I know enough about public records databases to know why. PACER, state filing portals, bar association directories -- none of these have clean APIs. Scraping at scale is legally gray and technically fragile. A 3/10 on speed to MVP is probably accurate, which means whoever buys this at $99 is about to spend months wrestling with data infrastructure before they get a single paying client.

Also: the moat claim. "Compliance records are public, but nobody's reading them at scale. You are. Your competition isn't." That's the dream. In reality, Lex Machina, Dun and Bradstreet, and a dozen smaller players are doing some version of this. The moat is in vertical depth and refresh discipline, not the data sources themselves. The page doesn't make that case.

## What would convince me

One real client story with a specific number. Not "one accounting firm saw 3x pipeline" -- I mean: "We built a list of 847 CPA firms in Ohio who filed new business registrations in Q1. One firm closed two clients from it in 60 days." Specific vertical, specific signal source, specific outcome. That's the difference between a concept and a product.

Also, I want to see one example list. Not a sample form. An actual excerpt: here are five rows, here are the columns, here is the signal that triggered inclusion. That would tell me more than the entire methodology section.

## What I'd ask in an email reply

1. The enrichment step says "Names, titles, emails, signals layered on top." What's your source for the email layer specifically? EDGAR and state filings don't give you that. Are you hitting Clay, Apollo, or something proprietary? Because the answer changes whether this is defensible or just Apollo with a compliance wrapper.

2. The staffing vertical mentions "CDL drivers flagged from business registrations and license data." That's oddly specific and I want to know if someone has actually tested this signal. Did a staffing agency use CDL license data to find drivers and place them? Or is this a logical inference that hasn't been tried?

3. You scored buyer clarity 10/10 and distribution ease 10/10 but financial upside 1/10. Those feel contradictory. If buyers are obvious and they're easy to reach, why is the ceiling so low? Is it a pricing problem, a churn problem, or a market size problem?

## Verdict: on-the-fence

The underlying concept is real and I've watched companies fail to execute it, which means the failure mode is known and survivable. But this page is doing two jobs at once -- selling the dream of the product AND honestly disclosing that the product doesn't exist yet -- and the whiplash between those two modes makes it hard to know what I'm actually being asked to do.

---
*Memo by skeptic persona, generated 2026-06-26. Studio breaks own self-grading loop.*