What I’ve Learned in the Past 6 Months Building in Longevity
When I first entered the longevity space, I was excited—and a bit naive. With prior experience in healthcare and startups, I thought it would be relatively easy to build something impactful. After all, longevity seemed like an extension of healthcare, and building a startup is just building another startup, right?
But I quickly realized:
Longevity ≠ Healthcare.
And more importantly, longevity doesn’t even have a shared definition.
In the hundreds of conversations I’ve had across Silicon Valley and Asia, I found that most people define longevity in one of three ways:
Living longer – e.g., dying at 100 instead of 70
Living healthier – staying in optimal function for as long as the human system allows
Never dying – achieving indefinite lifespan
These three definitions are vastly different in terms of user needs, technical feasibility, and product direction.
The Biotech Dreamers (Group #3)
Some envision a world where gene editing, organ printing, or cellular reprogramming breaks the ceiling of human biology. While exciting, this path is incredibly complex. It demands capital, regulatory navigation, deep scientific expertise, and likely decades—not 5 years—of coordinated innovation. It’s not the kind of problem a solo founder or a single PhD can crack over a weekend sprint. In fact, it's like the pharmaceutical industry—on steroids, and requires a country/network state with absolute determination to end aging with endless money.
Without industry-wide benchmarks, tons of money and a complex network of talents to build and without regulatory clarity, a launchpad in Web3 or a college graduate without patience to build, is very unlikely to be successful. (At least we should feel fortunate that AI cannot do this complex task yet.)
The Functional Longevity Crowd (Group #2)
This is where most people land:
“I just want to stay functional, sharp, and energetic for as long as I can.”
Here, “longevity” becomes another word for proactive health—tracking sleep, nutrition, hormones, VO₂ max, biological age, and doing something about it. It is functional health optimization, despite it is highly correlated to longevity, but it is not causation. Just take a look at Bryan Johnson, with all the efforts he put in, he still does not look like 20 years old, regardless of what his biomarkers and functional tests tell us.
And yet—even highly educated users, including those who say they care about longevity, often forget to log data, skip measurements, or abandon routines. Not because they’re lazy—but because:
They don’t believe the actions actually help, or
The results don’t feel worth the effort compared to the priority in their life.
For example, I tested my biological clock using one of the famous test kits out there with “longevity insight”. It showed I was “5 years older” than my real age. That’s frustrating. What’s worse, is the insight they provided me: do more exercise, get some sun, have fish oil with food. This is the insight they have provided, to an avid freediver and a fitness coach who trains at least 2 hours a day and eats sushi at least 2 times a week with high quality fish oil. I have no other things I can do to improve… Should I challenge the credibility of the test, or should I give up my entrepreneur journey to pursuit absolute longevity optimization journey? Now imagine asking a founder to train 2 hours daily, or a full-time worker to follow Bryan Johnson’s $2M protocol—it’s simply not feasible.
So if you’re building for this group, here’s the sweet spot:
Find a pain point people already care about
They’ve tried to fix it but failed
They’re still motivated to try again
And they have the bandwidth to act
If the ROI is clear and the emotional frustration is real, there’s product-market fit to be uncovered. The same old Paul Graham’s quote: make things people love, still applies here. And what are the top priorities for different individuals? Despite people claim that they are in the longevity field, does not mean that their needs are the same.
The Passive Longevity Thinkers (Group #1)
This group sees longevity simply as “dying later.” Ironically, many people in this category are passive about life itself. They often say things like “I don’t want to live longer.” These individuals tend to tolerate unnecessary suffering, resist change, and reject interventions outright. In my experience, 100% of them are difficult to serve and emotionally draining to engage. I’ve learned to steer clear— because they are not ready, and may never be.
What This Means for Builders
Longevity is not one thing. It’s a fragmented concept filtered through personal values, health status, and worldviews. So if we’re going to build something truly impactful, we need to:
Be extremely clear about which “longevity” our product serves
Focus on users with measurable pain points and the motivation to act
Make the benefits of actions obvious, tangible, and emotionally rewarding in immediate and long term.
We’ve already started building this thinking into our product strategy—from redefining energy as a trackable, motivating metric, to syncing omics data from blood test to train our AI agents. But we’re just getting started.
Let’s keep building with clarity, empathy, and rigor. The field is still young—but if we define it well, we might just shape what longevity actually means for millions.