There are only 4 rules for building an MVP that doesn't collapse

I've been the go to guy for building and fixing MVPs for quite some time now. In that time, I’ve seen founders focus on everything but what actually matters for a first version.

After shipping more than 25 V1s, I can tell you every successful MVP follows these four technical principles:

1. Build one feature, not a collection of them - Solve one core problem completely $$$$
2. Write code that is easy to delete - Not code that is "scalable" $$$
3. Choose tech you can ship with tomorrow - Not tech you need to learn $$
4. Fake everything that isn't the core value - Manual processes, Concierge MVP $

Another way to think about it:

• Speed to validation - How fast can we prove someone will pay for this? $$$$
• Speed to iteration - How fast can we change it after feedback? $$$
• Speed to development - How fast can we build the first version? $$
• Speed to "perfection" - How fast can we make it look like a mature product? $ (This kills startups)

From a technical debt perspective:

• Strategic debt - "We will manually onboard users for now" (Easy to pay back)
• Reckless debt - "We'll figure out a proper database schema later" (Bankrupts you)
• Incidental debt - "This UI component is a bit messy" (Pay it back next sprint)
• Imaginary debt - "We need Kubernetes before we have a single user" (You're just procrastinating)

From a "what to actually build" perspective:

• One end-to-end user journey that works flawlessly
• Zero features that are "nice to have"
• Authentication and payments (if needed). Nothing else.
• A simple, boring, well-understood tech stack.

The hard truth I've learned: your first technical choices aren't about scaling to a million users. They're about surviving long enough to get 100.

Founders get obsessed with building for a future that might not exist, writing unchangeable code for a product that is guaranteed to change.

My technical validation framework now:

• Does this feature directly test our main hypothesis?
• Can I build this in a week or less?
• If we're wrong, can I throw this code away without crying?
• Is this choice helping us learn faster, or just helping us build more?
• Am I using a "cool" new technology or a boring one that just works?

The key insight from all my experience: the goal of an MVP is not to build a smaller version of your final product. It's to build a tool that maximizes learning.

I used to start with "what's the most robust architecture?" Now I start with "what's the absolute fastest path to prove or disprove our core idea?"

The difference in how many of these products actually find a market is staggering.

What's the most useless feature you've seen someone insist on including in an MVP?