I built a working product and people still don't understand what it does.

Honest read: the description does two distinct things at once and you might be repositioning the wrong half.

First half is "record bilateral obligations." That's bookkeeping. Every service professional already has a mental model for this and most don't reach for a tool because the alternative (a quick text + memory) is good enough for the volume they hit.

Second half is "find circular settlement opportunities across multiple participants." That's multilateral clearing. That's a genuinely hard problem with a real wedge but the audience is different from individual service pros, it's communities of professionals who already trade with each other repeatedly enough to have actual loops form. Think: a co-working space's resident freelancers, a trade association's members, a small town's service network.

If I read your post cold, my first guess at what Debsync does is "a way for friends to track who-owes-who at the group level." Which is a Splitwise-shaped read, and that's the framing competing with what you're actually building.

The barter-network examples are clearer than "debt tracking" but they still pitch the individual transaction (electrician helps landscaper). What's underspecified is the network density required for circular settlement to fire. Three-person loops are rare, larger loops are even rarer, but with the right population (a community that already trades 50+ times a month internally) the math gets interesting.

My honest answer to "who would use it": the buyer is the community organizer, not the individual professional. The professional is the user but they'll never search for this themselves. The organizer of the network (trade association rep, co-working community manager, local business chamber) is the one who has the problem of "members trade with each other informally, settlement is messy, can we clean this up." That's the wedge.

My first impression honestly wasn't debt tracking.

It felt more like a way to formalize informal exchanges between people who already trust each other.

Reading your examples helped a lot more than reading the feature list.

The interesting part to me wasn't the circular settlement logic. It was the fact that everyone involved can agree on a shared record of what happened.

That was the point where I started understanding the problem.

I think the confusion is happening before the feature explanation.

Right now Debsync feels like a system searching for a problem instead of a painful moment searching for a solution.

The hard part may not be “what does it do?” The harder part is what specific situation makes someone urgently care enough to record, confirm, and settle obligations in the first place.

I’d be careful with broad repositioning too quickly, because the wrong first buyer can make a useful workflow feel unnecessary.