If you're non-monogamous and you use mainstream dating apps, you've navigated some version of the same problem. You need to communicate your relationship structure to potential matches before they invest time in a connection that doesn't work for them, or before you do. The apps don't make this easy. Most of them weren't designed with this use case in mind, and the workarounds that CNM users have developed are a kind of folk knowledge that the platforms have largely failed to replace with actual features.
The disclosure problem has two sides. The first is structural: how does the platform let you communicate your relationship status? The second is social: when and how do you have the actual conversation? Both are real problems. The platforms can only solve the first one. Most of them haven't.
What the platforms have built (and why it's not enough)
The better mainstream apps now have relationship type fields. OkCupid has had them for years, you can specify monogamous, non-monogamous, or open to either, and you can filter matches by this field. Hinge added relationship goal options. Bumble has a relationship type field. This is progress.
But a relationship type field is not a disclosure system. It's a single data point that exists in a profile that many users don't fully read before matching or sending the first message. Research on dating app behaviour consistently shows that users make matching decisions based on photos first, and that profiles are often skimmed rather than read. Putting your relationship structure in a field that's several screens down from your photos is not the same as communicating it effectively.
The problem is compounded by field ambiguity. "Open to non-monogamy" means something different from "currently non-monogamous." "Non-monogamous" as a relationship type says nothing about structure, are you solo poly? In a relationship and dating separately? A couple looking for a third? Someone with multiple long-term partners? These distinctions matter enormously, and a single field can't carry them.
The bio workaround and why it's unstable
The standard CNM workaround is bio disclosure. You write something in your bio, "ethically non-monogamous," "open relationship," "poly and partnered," whatever shorthand fits, and trust that interested matches will read it and understand.
This works imperfectly. The people who read bios carefully are a subset of users. Some people match first and read later. Some read "ethically non-monogamous" and don't know what it means. Some know what it means and assume it means something different from your actual structure. Some see "partnered" and become interested specifically because they're looking for a no-strings connection, which may or may not be what you're offering.
The result is that even with clear bio disclosure, CNM users regularly end up in conversations where the relationship structure needs to be re-explained, where the bio disclosure failed to actually communicate what needed to be communicated. This costs time and emotional energy for everyone involved.
There's also the opposite problem: over-disclosure in the bio. Some CNM users write extensive bio sections explaining their relationship structure, their existing partners, their availability, their preferences. This often reads as either anxious or off-putting to people who haven't thought carefully about CNM before. The need to front-load so much information is itself a symptom of platform failure.
Feeld's approach and its limits
Feeld solves the structural disclosure problem better than any mainstream app, largely by designing the whole product around the assumption of CNM. The user base is pre-filtered. Relationship structure is the ambient context rather than a field you have to fill in. Partner linking means that coupled users can be visibly partnered without having to explain it in their bio.
This works well when you're connecting with other Feeld users in markets where Feeld has active user bases. It doesn't help when Feeld is thin in your city, when you're looking for matches who aren't specifically seeking CNM, or when your CNM structure sits at the edges of what Feeld's user base is primarily looking for.
Feeld also doesn't solve the conversation-level disclosure problem. Knowing that someone is non-monogamous doesn't tell you whether your specific structures are compatible. Two non-monogamous people can have deeply incompatible relationship architectures. Feeld makes the first disclosure easier; it doesn't make the compatibility conversation easier.
What a real solution would look like
A platform that took CNM disclosure seriously would do several things that none of the current options do adequately.
It would have structured relationship configuration, not just a relationship type field, but the ability to specify your structure in a way that's both legible to other users and filterable in search. Solo poly is not the same as kitchen table poly is not the same as a couple looking for a third. These distinctions should be first-class data, not things you cram into a bio.
It would surface disclosure earlier in the matching flow. Putting relationship type prominently, in the match card, not buried in the profile, makes it available before the decision to match rather than after. This is the difference between filtering and discovering after the fact.
It would provide some mechanism for verifying relationship status. Right now, anyone can claim any relationship structure. There's no cost to misrepresenting your situation. Consensual non-monogamy depends on all parties knowing what they're consenting to, a platform that takes this seriously would find ways to make honest disclosure the path of least resistance.
And it would have moderation that treats non-consensual deception about relationship status as a reportable violation. Right now, no mainstream platform treats this as a safety issue. It is.
Why this hasn't been built
The honest answer is that CNM users aren't the primary audience for most dating apps, and building disclosure infrastructure takes resources that platforms prefer to spend elsewhere. Feeld is the only platform where CNM users are the primary audience, and even Feeld has left obvious gaps in its disclosure system.
The market for a platform that takes this seriously, verification, moderation, structured relationship configuration, genuine safety infrastructure, is real and underserved. CNM users are disproportionately willing to pay for a product that actually serves their needs. The platform that builds it properly would have a genuine competitive advantage in a market that has been coasting on Feeld's early-mover position for too long.
Until then: put your structure in your bio, clearly and near the top. Use Feeld in markets where it's active. Add OkCupid for the relationship type filtering. Have the compatibility conversation earlier than feels comfortable. The folk solutions work well enough, but they shouldn't have to.