u/riarustagi

Hey everyone, Ria here founder/CEO and a first-time Kickstarter creator here. I'm launching a smart headphone at $500 early bird tiers - targeting AU, US, UK, Canada, and Europe. Goal is $500k minimum!

I've been doing the math and trying to figure out:

1. How large does my email list realistically need to be? At $500/unit I only need ~1,000 backers for the goal, does that make the list requirement significantly smaller than typical hardware campaigns?
2. What's a realistic prelaunch email conversion rate for a premium price point? I've seen 5–8% quoted but wondering if $500 changes that.
3. Is paid social (Meta/TikTok) the only realistic channel for list building in 3 weeks, or are there faster organic options — Reddit communities, newsletter swaps, influencer seeding, etc.?
4. Any connections on backer communities, PR etc?

Launch date is June 9. Any input from people who've run hardware/wearable campaigns appreciated, happy to share learnings once I'm live.

I’ve been working in the tDCS space for several years, first as a researcher and more recently on the product side.

One thing that has always stood out to me is that the clinical literature for tDCS is stronger than many people realize, particularly for cognitive fatigue and working memory. Protocols around 2 mA for 20 minutes with bilateral prefrontal placement (e.g., F3/F4) have shown meaningful effects in a number of studies.

The bigger issue, in my view, has never been efficacy. It’s adherence.

Most people are interested in trying tDCS, but consistent use is hard. Setup takes time, electrode placement can be inconvenient, conductive gel is messy, and carving out a dedicated 20-minute session every day doesn’t fit naturally into most routines.

Have you seen approaches that meaningfully improve long-term adherence? For example:

• Different form factors
• Dry electrodes
• Integrating stimulation into activities people already do
• Protocol changes that reduce friction
• Behavioral strategies that improve consistency

I’d also be interested in hearing perspectives on which use cases are genuinely well-supported by the research vs which claims are often overstated?

I went through a period of burnout a few years ago which I didn't fully understand until later.

I thought the solution was rest. A holiday. Time off. And I took some, and it helped briefly, and then I went back and within two weeks I was in the same place.

What I eventually understood, and what I want to share in case it reframes things for anyone here, is that what I was experiencing was not primarily a workload problem. It was a physiological state problem.

My cortisol had been elevated for so long that my nervous system had reset its baseline. My sleep architecture had changed. I was spending less time in slow-wave sleep, which meant my recovery per hour of sleep was genuinely lower. My prefrontal cortex activity was suppressed in ways that affected my ability to regulate my emotional responses to ordinary stressors.

Rest helps. But rest alone does not break the physiological state when the state has become the baseline.

What actually helped me beyond rest:

• Understanding that the state was physiological rather than psychological. This removed a layer of shame and self-criticism that was itself using cognitive resources I did not have to spare.
• Addressing the physical level directly. Consistent sleep schedule (the same bedtime even on weekends matters more than duration). Morning exercise. Deliberate evening wind-down that was about physiological deactivation, not just distraction.
• And later, working with the neuroscience of stress regulation more directly in my own work, which is a longer story.

I am not a clinician. I am sharing this as a person who was in a hard place and found a specific framing useful.

The thing I wish someone had told me earlier: burnout is not a discipline problem. It is a biological state. You treat biological states at the biological level.