Hey gang. In Part 1 of my interview with William Lavelle, we talked about what Haven Social is supposed to become. In Part 2, I wanted to know what it takes to actually build it.
That means people, money, equipment, and some uncomfortable questions. Who gets access to the code? What happens when investors enter the picture? And how much of yourself do you put into a project before it can support itself?
William had plenty to say. He also acknowledged where he still needs help. For somebody trying to turn a software project into a company, that distinction matters.
From a master's thesis to a team
William said Haven's initial prototype began as his master's thesis project. He continued developing it after graduation, but working alone presented a problem: time.
He described individual features that existed separately and still needed to come together into a working whole. Looking at the direction of social media, he decided he could not spend years doing everything himself. His attention shifted toward funding, finding developers, and getting the word out.
That's a substantial change in the job. Writing the software is one thing. Finding the money and people to finish it is another.
Who do you trust with the code?
I asked about bringing people into a project when part of what you're building is proprietary. How do you give developers enough access to work without handing somebody the means to walk away with your work?
William talked about careful hiring, nondisclosure agreements, paying people well, and eventually offering equity so employees could share in the company's success. His approach included giving people reasons to stay.
He also discussed technical controls he had encountered in software work, including company-controlled computers and repositories that track access to code. He was clear that he was describing possible approaches, rather than claiming Haven already had every one of those systems in place.
On the business and legal details, his answer was straightforward: he needs expert advice. He's a programmer. Hiring, contracts, and company policy bring in responsibilities beyond programming.
A smaller Kickstarter goal, a different funding plan
At the time of our conversation, Haven's Kickstarter had attracted more than 1,500 backers and over $120,000 in pledges. Those are figures from the interview, not a current campaign total.
This was William's third attempt. The previous two campaigns had each set a $100,000 goal and had not reached it. This time, the goal was $10,000, which he said the campaign reached in its first hour.
I wanted to know what had changed. Lowering the goal makes it easier to cross the line, but it doesn't automatically make the project cheaper to build.
William explained that he had developed relationships with potential angel investors who supported Haven's mission. The revised plan was to use Kickstarter funding to build the core features and demonstrate a working product, then seek additional funding. He no longer expected Kickstarter alone to pay for everything.
Those conversations weren't the same as finalized investment agreements. When I asked whether the funding would involve debt or equity, he said the terms had not yet been put on paper.
Paying for the platform without losing the mission
This is where the financing conversation connects directly to what we discussed in Part 1. If Haven's appeal is that it will operate differently, what happens when somebody else's money comes with somebody else's expectations?
William said the stronger Kickstarter response would let Haven ask investors for less. He also described a deliberate effort to generate revenue early, rather than depend on outside funding while postponing the question of how the business would sustain itself.
His goal is financial independence. He spoke about eventually repaying or buying out outside investment, depending on the arrangement, and expressed a firm intention to keep the company private.
He said Haven was already an LLC and that he hoped to adopt a benefit-corporation structure in the future. That was a proposed change, with legal work still ahead. It wasn't something he said had already happened.
For me, the important question is how those intentions become actual decisions about money and control. William laid out the direction he wants to take. The agreements and the execution still matter.
The campaign took more than a lower number
William's account of the three campaigns was also a story about learning to market something.
For the first attempt, he thought interest from people he met at a conference would be enough. It wasn't. For the second, he spent money sponsoring YouTube channels. He said that effort brought in roughly $44,000 in pledges, still below the campaign's goal.
For the third, he hired marketing consultants, built a mailing list, and worked to bring supporters to the campaign together at launch. In his telling, that preparation helped create the early momentum we were watching.
I asked what it felt like to finally hit the goal. His answer wasn't a victory speech. He was exhausted and still working. He described an all-nighter before launch and an interview after being awake for roughly 48 hours.
The number on the screen had changed. The workload hadn't gone away.
Pledges, expenses, and the personal cost
We also talked about the difference between a pledge total and money available to spend. At that point in the campaign, William said the money had not yet moved. Collection and payment would follow the campaign's close.
Questions about taxes, compensation, and the treatment of money he had already spent brought us back to the need for professional help. William said he intended to hire a CPA and consult lawyers. Those were open business questions in the interview.
He described leaving his full-time work in ransomware recovery, putting his own savings and some inheritance into Haven, and moving in with his grandparents. He said he had also taken on credit-card debt in the months leading up to the interview.
According to William, some campaign funds would go toward repaying that project-related debt. The rest would support equipment and developers, with the aim of reaching the next stage of funding. That was his stated plan for the money.
There's a person behind the campaign page, and the risk he described was personal. There's also a company to build. A successful fundraiser gives him resources to do that work; it doesn't finish the work for him.
What comes after the funding goal?
Part 2 gave us a fuller picture of the effort behind Haven Social: a programmer learning to hire, market, raise money, and make decisions that could shape the platform long before most people ever use it.
I appreciate William being willing to answer questions about the parts that are still being worked out. If you want to understand what he's trying to do, the funding and ownership questions deserve as much attention as the features.
Read the full Part 2 transcript, revisit Part 1 of our conversation, and explore Haven at havensocial.org.
Like. Share. Subscribe. Bookmark. Tell a friend!