This is open to discussion, but you generally need to have thousands of hands and i mean 2 digits, like 50k+, to determine your real winrate, filtered by all the lovely downswings, tilt, luck, boredom.
I don't know what is your sample size but if you're starting now as you said, i recommend to stick to
microstakes a long time. That is because in
microstakes you'll be able to play your
ABC game, acting in the basic of ways learning stuff and paying as less as possible.
There are even good players that still playing (multitabling) microstakes because they're profitable.
The higher the stakes, the less winrate in general you'll have as well.
So, if you have a
3bb/100 winrate in microstakes after 2000 hands and you think you're crushing it, if you climb to higher stakes, you may end up losing. Remember that higher stakes players are players that climbed their way (well, most of them).
In addition, higher stakes needs higher bankroll as well. You may be surprised by how you much you required to have before venturing into the higher stakes (and i mean the higher end of the microstakes, not higher).
Instead, if you become good you could try
multitabling adding 1 or two tables, increasing your profitability (if you're good) but consuming the same time.
Finally, remember that a good winrate is one that is positive: a
1bb/100 is pretty good in a
large sample size; it means you're already doing something good. There's also a good article here. I remember one post in
2+2 forums about a guy that was (really) crushing 6-max microstakes. His winrate?
6bb/100 in 100k hands.