Doist’s Amir Salihefendic, at Podim 2026: 50M Users, Bootstrapped

Amir Salihefendic, founder of Doist, has built one of the most enduring product-led companies in the productivity space, scaling tools like Todoist without relying on external capital. 

His approach stands in contrast to the dominant venture-backed approach, shaped instead by long-term thinking, disciplined growth, and a strong bias toward independence.

At Podim Conference, which is taking place at the moment of this interview’s publication, he joins the stage to talk about what it actually takes to reach 50 million users without investment.

Podim has steadily positioned itself as one of the more relevant convening points for CEE founders precisely because it focuses on these inflection points: it brings together operators, investors, and builders who are actively scaling across markets. 

Tell us about yourself. What isn’t obvious from the outside?

Something most people don’t know is that I’ve never really had a traditional job working for others.

I had a couple of student jobs, but I wouldn’t define those as real jobs. I’ve essentially been founding and running companies the whole time. The limitation is that the mental model I’m using might be imperfect, but I try to compensate for that by building a high-trust environment.

At Doist, for example, we never went into surveillance or tracking. There are companies that track employees’ time or even record them. That’s not the kind of environment we wanted to create.

At the same time, I’ve always valued independence and the ability to make decisions. That’s something I didn’t like in more hierarchical setups, even with investors or co-founders.

You’ve said leadership wasn’t something you actively aspired to. How did that evolve?

It came out of necessity.

When I was younger, I didn’t want to start a company. My parents had a business, and I saw how stressful it was. They didn’t take vacations, they were constantly under pressure.

But if you want to create something meaningful, you can’t do it alone. Your impact is limited. You need other people with complementary skills to build something larger than yourself.

So leadership became something I had to grow into.

You’ve built a profitable, bootstrapped company. Where did that create constraints, and where did it give you an advantage?

I see constraints as an advantage. When you’re not constrained, it’s very easy to make poor decisions. You can spend money freely, hire too quickly, and lose discipline. Constraints force better thinking. You can make bad decisions when you’re bootstrapped as well, but they hurt faster and you can catch them earlier. 

For us, bootstrapping meant we had to be careful with hiring. We never did blitzscaling. We didn’t hire hundreds of people in a short period. Every hire mattered, because a mistake would be felt immediately.

That said, there are markets where speed and capital are essential. If you’re building foundational AI models, for example, it’s capital-intensive. Bootstrapping isn’t always the right approach in those cases.

Did you ever seriously consider taking external capital?

Early on, I received an offer from a well-known Silicon Valley VC, around $500,000 at the time, which was significant for me.

But the implicit expectation was that I would be replaced as CEO. That made the decision clear.

If I had taken that path, I likely wouldn’t still be leading the company. And you see this pattern often. Companies that raise capital sometimes lose control of their direction or leadership.

You built a remote company long before it became mainstream. How does reality differ from perception?

The perception used to be that remote work meant freedom in a very superficial sense. Working from a beach, drinking a piña colada.

That’s not reality for most people who are doing deep, focused work, often from their home country, close to family, and want to have control over their environment.

Another misconception is that remote workers are less productive. In practice, the opposite risk exists. It’s very easy to overwork without clear boundaries when work and life blend together.

At the same time, flexibility really is the biggest advantage. I have three kids, and it allows me to be present in ways that would not be possible in a traditional setup.

Where have companies gotten remote work wrong?

The biggest issue is meeting culture. Many companies took their office habits and simply moved them online. That resulted in days filled with back-to-back video calls. That’s not sustainable, and it’s not efficient.

What’s your view on companies pushing people back to the office?

I think they’re limiting themselves. If you require people to be in a specific location, your talent pool shrinks significantly. It becomes harder to hire exceptional people.

There’s also a structural issue with how knowledge is captured. In remote companies, a lot of communication is written. It becomes part of a shared system.

In office-based environments, a lot of decisions happen informally, in conversations that are never documented. That creates gaps.

This becomes even more relevant with AI. If your knowledge is structured in text, documents, and systems, it’s much easier to integrate AI into your workflows. If your knowledge lives in people’s heads, it’s harder to extract and leverage.

How has your thinking as a founder changed over time?

One major shift was around the idea of balance. At one point, we had balance as a core value. Over time, we realized it was attracting the wrong expectations.

Some people interpreted it as an environment where they could contribute less. That’s not what we wanted.

We’re ambitious. We want to create impact. Remote work, for us, is not about working less, but better. We shifted toward a more performance-oriented culture – not in a negative sense, but in the sense of growth. If people are not growing, that becomes a problem over time.

What are you looking forward to at Podim?

I don’t attend many conferences, but I do try to engage more in the Balkan region.

I’m looking forward to meeting people and having meaningful conversations – there’s a lot of talent in the region, but sometimes what’s missing is exposure and encouragement.

More broadly, I think technology is critical for the region’s future, and for Europe as a whole. We are not currently where we need to be in terms of technological leadership.

That has implications for both prosperity and security. So building stronger ecosystems around technology and entrepreneurship is important.

What is the main challenge you’re dealing with today?

The shift driven by AI. We are in a period of structural change, and the question is how to adapt, both as a company and as individuals.

For a software company, this affects everything: product, workflows, roles, and long-term positioning.

There’s also a responsibility toward the team. We have around 100 people, which means 100 families. It’s important to think about how to help people transition and stay relevant.

Some companies are reacting by doing large layoffs. I don’t think that’s a thoughtful approach. It’s a short-term optimization. A better approach is to help people adapt and to integrate these changes in a way that creates long-term value.

One of the panels is named Founder Confessions. Is there something about being a founder that isn’t discussed enough?

A lot of founders are driven by something deeper, often something difficult from their past. There’s usually a strong internal drive that isn’t entirely rational, that can come from trauma or formative experiences.

In my case, I grew up as a refugee. That shaped how I see the world. It creates a certain resilience, but also a different baseline for what stress or difficulty means. This isn’t something that’s openly discussed, but it’s a common pattern.

Do you think the way we talk about success is distorted?

I don’t see it as purely a cultural issue. I think it’s tied to human nature. People who build companies are often not satisfied with reaching a milestone. Once they achieve something, they look for the next challenge.

That drive is what allows them to build in the first place. But it also means there’s no clear endpoint. There’s no real “off switch.” Even when you try to disconnect, your mind is still engaged. That’s part of the trade-off.

If you could advise 20-year-olds building products today, what would you emphasize?

Ambition at a larger scale. Many people anchor their expectations to their immediate environment. If your reference point is limited, your ambition will be limited as well.

It’s important to think globally, to take risks, and to aim beyond your immediate context, especially when you’re young and have fewer constraints. That’s the time to explore and take bigger bets.