The fastest way to waste a first build is to build it. Half the founders who come to us for an MVP need a week of validation more than they need a codebase, and we would rather say so.
July 21, 2026
Founders come to us with a build already fully formed in their heads. They have the screens, the flows, sometimes a name and a logo, and what they want from a studio is execution: turn the picture into a working product. It is a reasonable ask, and it is the one we are set up to say yes to. But the most valuable thing we can do in a first conversation is not always to agree. Roughly half the founders who arrive asking for an MVP would be better served by a week of validation than by a codebase, and telling them so is part of the job. The fastest way to waste a first build is to build it before you know it is the right thing to build.
An MVP is a way to learn, not a way to launch
The phrase minimum viable product has drifted over the years into meaning a small first version of the real thing. That is not what it is for. An MVP is an experiment. Its output is not a product, it is an answer to a question the founder cannot yet answer any other way: will the people I think have this problem change their behavior to use what I make. If you already know the answer, you do not need an MVP, you need the actual product. If you do not know the answer, then the MVP has to be designed around the question, and most of the ones we are handed are not. They are designed around the founder's vision of the finished thing, which is a different and much more expensive object.
