The Engagement Credit System: Rewarding Customers Who Help Build the Product

We want Minti to be shaped by the people who use it. But "shaped by customers" is easy to say and hard to operationalize. How do you make sure the loudest voice doesn't drown out the most useful one? How do you reward quality over quantity?

Our answer is the engagement credit system.

How credits work

Every meaningful interaction with Minti earns engagement credits. There are three types of contributions, each worth a different amount:

Input (3 credits) — Submit structured feedback about a real problem you're facing. This is the foundation: raw signal about what's broken, missing, or painful in your current workflow. The patterns from our first 13 feedback submissions explain why structured input matters so much.

Respond (2 credits) — React to other people's feedback. Confirm you've experienced the same problem, add context, or explain why a proposed direction would or wouldn't work for your use case. This deepens the signal, especially when it preserves the kind of detail you see in strong customer feedback examples.

Review (4 credits) — Evaluate a proposed solution or prototype. This is the highest-value contribution because it requires you to engage deeply with a potential direction and pressure-test it against your real needs.

What credits actually do

Credits aren't cosmetic. They serve three real functions:

Priority weight. When we triage and prioritize feedback, contributions from people with more credits carry more weight. Not because their opinions are inherently better, but because they've demonstrated sustained, thoughtful engagement with the product and its direction. This is the contributor-weight layer inside our triage system, and we keep it explicit in the scorecard so the tradeoffs stay legible.

Strategic voice. As patterns emerge in our feedback data, we lean more heavily on high-credit contributors for directional guidance. These are the people who've proven they understand both their own needs and the broader landscape of what Minti could become. That's also why building in public works better when the most engaged contributors can see how their input affects the system.

Future incentives. We're actively researching additional rewards for the highest-signal contributors — things like early access, direct input on roadmap sequencing, and other forms of recognition. The credit system is the foundation for this.

Why not just count submissions?

Because volume isn't signal. Someone who submits ten vague "make it better" entries is not providing more value than someone who submits one detailed, evidence-rich description of a real problem. Our credit structure intentionally rewards depth over frequency.

The three-tier system (input, respond, review) also reflects a natural progression. New users typically start by sharing their own problems. As they get more familiar with Minti and see other people's feedback, they start responding. Eventually, the most engaged contributors help us evaluate solutions.

Designing for trust

The credit system is deliberately transparent. You can see how many credits each action is worth, how your total compares, and what influence your contributions carry. There's no hidden algorithm deciding whose voice matters.

This transparency is non-negotiable for us. If we're asking people to invest time in helping build this product, they deserve to know exactly how that investment translates into influence. No black boxes, no vague promises of "we'll take it into consideration."

Start contributing and see for yourself. Every structured piece of feedback is an investment in making Minti the thing you actually need. If you want the templates and decision scaffolding behind this model, start with the Product Evidence Kit.