Maktub

Why Maktub

We didn't invent these problems. We're citing them.

Every figure on this page traces to a published source, linked at the bottom. Where a finding is contested, we say so — including one below that argues our own case, and hasn't reliably replicated.

The problem

Dating apps are exhausting people, not connecting them.

78% of dating-app users report feeling emotionally, mentally or physically exhausted — and a 12-week study of active users found that exhaustion doesn't fade with practice. It gets worse the longer you stay on the app.

Share of dating-app users reporting exhaustionA bar chart showing 78% of dating-app users overall, 79% of Gen Z, and 80% of Millennials report feeling emotionally, mentally or physically exhausted by dating apps.All users78%Gen Z79%Millennials80%
Share of dating-app users reporting exhaustion, by age group
percent
All users78%
Gen Z79%
Millennials80%
[1]
Emotional exhaustion rises the longer users stay activeA line chart showing self-reported emotional exhaustion climbing steadily from week 1 to week 12 of a 12-week study tracking roughly 500 dating-app users.1Week 11.4Week 41.8Week 82.1Week 12
Self-reported emotional exhaustion over a 12-week study (index, higher = more exhausted)
Exhaustion index
Week 11
Week 41.4
Week 81.8
Week 122.1
[2]

Why photo-first fails

A profile picture is not a person.

Eye-tracking studies show a photo captures roughly twice the attention a bio does, and first impressions form in about the time it takes to blink. That's a snap judgment, not a considered one — which is exactly the moment Maktub removes by locking photos until a mutual Salaam.

Where visual attention actually goes on a profileA proportion bar showing photos capture about 65% of visual attention on a dating profile, versus 35% for the accompanying bio text.65%Photo35%Bio text
Share of visual attention on a multimodal dating profile
percent
Photo65%
Bio text35%
[3]

Fewer, better

One thoughtful introduction beats an endless feed.

A famous 2000 study found shoppers offered 6 jam varieties bought ten times more often than shoppers offered 24 — the idea that too much choice backfires. It's a compelling story, but later attempts to reproduce it mostly failed. We're not resting our case on it. We're resting it on the same instinct as the eye-tracking finding above: rushed, photo-first judgments favor volume over consideration. Matching Maktub sends is deliberately narrower, one considered introduction at a time, because the outcome that matters is a date worth having, not a feed worth scrolling.

More options, fewer decisions — in one contested studyA bar chart showing a jam-tasting table with 6 varieties converted 30% of tasters to buyers, versus 3% for a table with 24 varieties.6 varieties30%24 varieties3%
Purchase rate at a jam-tasting table, by number of varieties offered
percent
6 varieties30%
24 varieties3%
[4]

Built for the Netherlands

A fast-growing community, still without a platform built for it.

Muslims are roughly 6% of the Dutch population, and Islam is the fastest-growing faith among Dutch 18-25 year-olds. The largest global Muslim dating app already serves 19 million users and reports around 500 new couples a day — proof of demand, not evidence anyone has solved it for the Netherlands specifically.

Muslims are a fast-growing share of the Dutch populationA bar chart showing Muslims make up approximately 6% of the population of the Netherlands.Netherlands6%
Muslim share of the Dutch population
percent
Netherlands6%
[5][6]

How we handle contested findings

We link every source and say plainly when a finding hasn't held up. The jam-tasting study above is the clearest example: it's a famous, intuitive result, and later meta-analyses found the average effect across replications is close to zero. We still think fewer, better introductions are the right design — but we're not going to cite contested science as if it were settled to make that case. The eye-tracking research above carries the real weight of that argument.

Sources

  1. [1] Forbes Health (2023)
  2. [2] New Media & Society (2024)
  3. [3] Social Media + Society (van der Zanden et al.) (2022)
  4. [4] Iyengar & Lepper, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2000)Later meta-analyses (e.g. Scheibehenne, Greifeneder & Todd, 2010) found the average choice-overload effect across replications is close to zero. We cite this study for the framing question it raised, not as settled proof — the case for fewer, better introductions rests on the eye-tracking data above, not on this study alone.
  5. [5] Statistics Netherlands (CBS) (2024)
  6. [6] Muzz (public company figures) (2025)

None of this replaces trying it yourself.

Join the waitlist, or support the founding cohort and help us build it.

Join the founding cohort