I built AlertHype ā a lightweight TradingView alert router for Telegram/Discord
Hey IH š
I just launched AlertHype, my first side project that Iām trying to turn into a small paid product.
Why I built it:
I was running trading automation on Binance Futures (ccxt) and constantly missing or mismanaging TradingView alerts.
I tried existing tools, but most of them felt too heavy for my use case ā either required VPS/setup, were expensive for just forwarding alerts, or had way more complexity than I needed.
So I ended up building something simple myself.
What it does:
It routes TradingView webhook alerts ā Telegram or Discord.
Paste a webhook URL, connect, and it just works ā no server setup, no code.
Current state:
Launched ~48 hours ago
0 paying users (still early š
)
Free plan available (no login required)
Pro plan: $9.99/month (alerts, logs, customization, etc.)
What Iām trying to learn right now:
Where traders actually hang out / how to reach them
Whether the pricing feels reasonable
What would make this a āmust-haveā instead of a nice-to-have
Would really appreciate any feedback ā especially from people building in trading / automation space.
If anyone wants to check it out:
š https://alerthype.com
Thanks for reading š
I really appreciate all the valuable insights shared in this article. It offers plenty of practical knowledge that I find quite useful. I have bookmarked this wonderful post immediately. markerase
Thanks! Appreciate it
This is yet another example of how AI helps us with everything we need. Good luck on the journey that has just begun.
Thanks! Appreciate the support š
You probably built the right product for the wrong emotional frame.
Most traders do not wake up wanting āalert routing.ā
They want fewer missed entries, fewer late reactions, and less anxiety around execution.
āWebhook forwardingā sounds infrastructural.
The actual value is confidence and speed during live volatility.
That distinction matters because your current positioning makes the product feel optional.
Also: AlertHype is descriptive enough to explain the category, but it also sounds temporary/tool-ish for something sitting in a trading workflow.
If this grows beyond forwarding into execution infrastructure, monitoring, or automation reliability, the current name may start capping perceived seriousness pretty quickly.
Vroth.com would fit that future direction much better.
Harder edge, more durable, more infrastructure-grade than AlertHype.
Thatās a really good point ā I agree the emotional side matters more than the technical framing.
Right now Iām keeping it simple because Iām still validating the core use case, but Iāll definitely rethink how I position it as I learn more from users.
Appreciate the feedback ā thatās really helpful.
That makes sense.
But Iād be careful not to validate only the technical use case.
If users describe the pain as āI need webhook forwarding,ā youāll get one type of signal.
If they describe it as āI keep missing entries because alerts donāt reach me fast enough,ā youāll get a much stronger signal.
Same product, different urgency.
Thatās why Iād test the emotional frame early, not later.
If the product starts proving itself as reliability infrastructure for live trading, thatās where a name like Vroth starts making more sense than AlertHype.
Really appreciate you taking the time to dig deeper into this.
I think your point about emotional framing vs technical framing is spot on ā especially around how users actually describe the problem in real situations.
Iām keeping things intentionally simple for now while I observe real usage patterns, but Iāll definitely keep this perspective in mind as I iterate.
Thanks again for the thoughtful feedback ā itās genuinely helpful.
Makes sense.
The only thing Iād watch is whether ākeeping it simpleā delays the signal you actually need.
If the product is really about live-trading reliability, the name and positioning should start testing that now.
Otherwise you may validate forwarding, but miss the bigger infrastructure angle completely.
Thatās fair ā and your comments already made me rethink some of the wording on the landing page.
I can definitely see how focusing too much on the āforwardingā layer could miss the actual user urgency behind it.
For now I still want to stay close to real usage patterns before leaning too hard into a bigger positioning, but your perspective has genuinely been really useful.
Thatās fair.
Iād just separate learning from delay.
You can stay close to real usage patterns while still testing the bigger frame now.
Because the wording itself changes what kind of signal you get.
If you say āwebhook forwarding,ā users respond like theyāre evaluating a utility.
If you say ālive-trading alert reliability,ā users respond like theyāre evaluating risk reduction.
Same product.
Different buyer psychology.
Thatās why Iād test that frame early.
Otherwise you may collect usage data around the smaller version of the product and miss the larger category it could become.
Yeah, I honestly hadnāt even thought about the product from the ātrading reliability infrastructureā angle before this discussion.
In my head it was always just:
āmake TradingView alerts fast, reliable, and easy.ā
But your comments made me realize the way people emotionally frame the problem completely changes how they perceive the product value.
That was genuinely a really useful perspective shift for me ā appreciate you taking the time to go this deep on it.
Coming back to this because your product was one of the clearest cases where positioning could change the buyer psychology.
The key question is probably not just whether AlertHype works technically. It is whether traders understand it as a forwarding utility or as live-trading reliability infrastructure.
That difference affects the landing page, pricing, user interviews, and even the name.
If useful, I can do a focused naming/positioning audit around this: current name risk, utility vs infrastructure framing, what traders are likely to assume from AlertHype, where the landing page may be underselling urgency, and whether a harder brand direction like Vroth only makes sense if the reliability angle is real.
Not a long consulting thing. Just a sharp written breakdown you can use before more usage data gets interpreted through the smaller āwebhook forwardingā frame.
Iām doing a few of these at $99 while refining the format.
If useful, connect here and I can give you a clear outside read:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/aryan-y-0163b0278/
Thatās the key shift.
If the product is framed as āfast TradingView alerts,ā it stays in utility territory.
If itās framed as ālive-trading reliability infrastructure,ā the perceived value changes completely.
Because traders are not really buying forwarding.
Theyāre buying confidence that the signal reaches them before the opportunity disappears.
Thatās also why I keep coming back to the name.
AlertHype fits the smaller utility version.
Vroth fits the harder infrastructure version.
If youāre already seeing the product through the reliability lens now, Iād seriously pressure-test whether the current name can carry that before you get too far into launch.
Happy to answer any questions or go deeper on how I built this.