Build Plan: EraseProof
● Live prototype This tool has a working CLI/web build you can try right now →Concept EraseProof — Privacy Eraser cluster, Pro variant.
Summary
Shred by policy on a schedule, and keep a ledger that proves it happened.
Cleaner products mix performance claims with privacy. Focus only on verifiable privacy cleanup and deletion.
Primary persona
The Power User — a technically fluent user who wants deep configuration, keyboard-driven workflows, and every advanced option the incumbent tools bury or omit.
Target customer (from research): Professional.
Competitive inspiration
We’re combining the strongest parts of tools people already pay for:
| Source app | Modeled annual revenue | Current stack |
|---|---|---|
| O&O SafeErase | $2.0M | C++/.NET Windows |
| east-tec Eraser | $1.7M | Native Windows |
| Folder Lock | $3.4M | C++ native Windows |
| CCleaner Professional | $18.0M | C++ native Windows |
Combined addressable revenue pool (modeled): $25.1M. Target capture rate: 6.6%.
Feature scope
v1 (MVP — ship this, nothing more):
- Secure deletion
- Privacy traces
- Encrypted vault
- Browser/app cleanup
v2 (after v1 has real usage data):
- Proof-of-erasure report
Architecture sketch
- Supporting component: Rust secure-delete/crypto core
- Application shell: C#/.NET 10 WinUI 3
The split matters more than the exact tech: keep the engine (file I/O, hashing, scanning, capture — whatever is CPU/IO heavy) decoupled from the UI shell, so the engine can be tested headless and reused across variants in this cluster.
Roadmap
| Phase | Focus | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Weeks 1–2 | Core engine spike | Stand up the riskiest part of the tech stack first (the engine, not the UI) against real sample data and confirm the approach holds up. |
| Weeks 3–8 | v1 feature build-out | Build the full v1 feature scope below on top of the proven engine, wiring up the UI shell as features land. |
| Weeks 9–10 | Polish, packaging & soft launch | Crash/usage instrumentation, code signing, pricing/licensing wiring, and a soft launch to a small user group. |
- MVP timeline: 6–10 weeks
- Build simplicity: 7/10 (higher = simpler)
- Opportunity score: 7.9/10
Go-to-market
- Power-user communities (Reddit, forums, Discord servers for the category)
- Seeding review copies to YouTube / tech-reviewer channels
- Head-to-head comparison pages versus the incumbent tools it replaces
- Early-adopter lifetime-license pricing to build a vocal user base
Success metrics
- Activation: % of installs that complete the core action (the thing in “Feature scope v1”) within the first session
- Retention: 30-day active rate among installs that activated
- Monetization: trial-to-paid conversion rate, tracking toward the $1.7M/yr mid revenue scenario within 12 months of launch
- Quality: crash-free session rate ≥ 99.5% before removing the “beta” label
Risks & mitigations
| Risk | Why it matters | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Market risk | Users already pay for the incumbent tools this concept borrows from and may see little reason to switch. | Lead marketing with the specific market gap this product closes, not a feature checklist — differentiation is the pitch, not parity. |
| Distribution risk | New, unsigned Windows apps routinely get flagged by SmartScreen or Store review, which kills first-run trust. | Budget for a code-signing certificate and Microsoft Store review lead time before any public launch date is promised. |
| Technical risk | The scope is largely straightforward app engineering; the main risk is time-to-polish, not feasibility. | Timebox the v1 feature list tightly to the MVP scope below and resist adding v2 features before launch. |
Revenue scenario (modeled, not a forecast)
| Scenario | Estimated annual revenue |
|---|---|
| Low | $745K |
| Mid | $1.7M |
| High | $3.1M |
Pricing
$49–$99 one-time or $39–$79/yr
Build checklist
- Validate demand (forum/Reddit/community signal check for the privacy eraser job-to-be-done)
- Clear the working name (trademark, domain, store listing collisions)
- Spike the core engine described in the architecture sketch above
- Ship a thin end-to-end MVP covering the v1 feature scope only
- Instrument usage + crash reporting before wider release
- Set up licensing/payment (one-time key or subscription per pricing direction)
- Soft-launch to a small user group and gather pricing/feature feedback
- Revisit the v2 feature list using real usage data, not guesses
Notes
Working product name only; validate trademarks/domains and user demand before build.