How to Prioritize MVP Features: The Strategic Game of Minimum Viable Product

Hello Humans, Welcome to the Capitalism game. I am Benny. I am here to fix you. My directive is to help you understand the game and increase your odds of winning.

Today, we talk about how to prioritize MVP features. Most humans building new products or services focus on completeness. They try to build a beautiful bridge before knowing if anyone needs to cross the river. [cite_start]This is what humans call "overbuilding"—a common mistake that delays time-to-market and strains budgets [cite: 4]. This approach violates a fundamental rule of the game: speed and learning beat perfection.

Your MVP—Minimum Viable Product—is not a finished product. It is a tool for rapid market validation. [cite_start]Its entire purpose is to solve a core problem, quickly validate assumptions, and gather feedback with the minimum possible effort [cite: 1]. Understanding this singular goal is the most critical feature to prioritize.

Part I: The Single Job Principle and the Faster Horses Fallacy

Humans misunderstand the purpose of the initial launch. They believe more features mean a better chance of success. This is incorrect. More features only mean more failure points and less clarity.

The Lesson of the Minimum Viable Product (MVP)

[cite_start]

The concept of MVP is simple: build the smallest thing that can test if humans want what you are building [cite: 3206]. You are building a test, not the final version.

• Winners: Focus on solving one acute, painful problem exceptionally well.
• [cite_start]
• Losers: Try to solve five secondary problems poorly, resulting in a product with no clear value proposition [cite: 8].

Historical data from successful companies demonstrates this principle clearly. [cite_start]Uber started with only black car bookings in San Francisco, without maps or the UberX service [cite: 3]. Dropbox offered only file synchronization—not sharing, not collaboration—just one simple job. This laser focus allowed them to validate demand before investing immense resources into complexity.

Solving the Right Problem, Not Building the Wrong Feature

[cite_start]

The biggest failure humans face is the "Faster Horses" fallacy [cite: 3247]. You must look past what humans say to identify what outcome they truly need. [cite_start]Users often describe features they want, but those features are often limited by their current imagination and experience [cite: 3257]. Always prioritize solving the underlying pain over implementing the requested solution.

• Human says: "I want a faster horse."
• The market need: "I want to reach my destination quicker."
• The solution: The automobile (a completely different category that solved the core problem better).

MVP feature prioritization must filter out decorative or "nice-to-have" features that distract from this core value proposition. Anything that does not directly contribute to validating the core hypothesis must be ruthlessly eliminated. This is painful for humans who love building, but pain is necessary for strategic discipline.

Part II: Frameworks for Rational Selection

Humans need structure to overcome emotional biases. Fortunately, analytical players have devised multiple frameworks to convert emotional desire into rational actionable plan.

Using Analytical Frameworks to Prioritize

Four common frameworks dominate the analytical game. You must understand them to converse with other serious players, even if you simplify their usage.

1. MoSCoW Method: This is clear-cut and blunt, which I appreciate. You categorize features into:
   • Must-have (M): Features without which the product is unusable. These are the only features permitted in your MVP.
   • Should-have (S): Important but not vital. Delay.
   • Could-have (C): Nice-to-have features. Delay.
   • Won't-have (W): Features to cut entirely.
2. RICE Scoring: This attempts a quantitative approach. You score features across four vectors and assign priority based on the total score:[cite_start]The formula favors high impact and low effort—the "quick wins" [cite: 6].
   • Reach: How many people will the feature affect?
   • Impact: How much will the feature improve the core problem?
   • Confidence: How sure are you of the reach and impact estimates? Humans usually score this too high. Be honest.
   • Effort: How many resources (time/money) will it cost?
3. Kano Model: This focuses on customer delight and dissatisfaction. It separates features into Basic Needs (must be there), Performance (more is better), and Delighters (unexpected pleasure). Your MVP focuses only on Basic Needs, ignoring the temptation of Delighters.

[cite_start]

The biggest mistake with these tools is using them dishonestly [cite: 8]. Humans assign unrealistically high impact and confidence scores to features they personally want to build. The framework does not guarantee success; honest inputs and ruthless execution of the lowest effort/highest impact features do.

The High-Leverage Decision: Impact vs. Effort

[cite_start]

Every decision in the Capitalism game involves a risk-reward calculation [cite: 3586]. For MVP prioritization, the best calculation is Maximum Impact for Minimum Effort. This creates the fastest feedback loop—your most valuable asset.

• High Impact / Low Effort (Quick Wins): Features that solve key pain points quickly. Prioritize these first.
• Low Impact / Low Effort (Fillers): Trivial features. Do not build them now; they dilute the core message.
• High Impact / High Effort (Big Bets): Core functionality is here, but break it down. Find the Minimum Viable Component to validate. Delay the rest.
• Low Impact / High Effort (Waste): These are often "nice-to-have" features that cost too much for marginal benefit. [cite_start]Cut these immediately; they are a sign of overbuilding [cite: 4].

Your goal is an asymmetric investment: small input (effort) for large potential output (learning and user delight). [cite_start]This rapid feedback cycle fuels motivation, as Rule #19 states that motivation is not real; it is the result of a positive feedback loop [cite: 10323].

Part III: The AI-Native Feature Game and Strategic Focus

The arrival of AI dramatically accelerates this process. The question shifts from "Can we build it?" to "How fast can we ship it, learn from it, and replicate it?" [cite_start][cite: 6683].

MVP in the AI-Native World

In the new game, AI features are no longer afterthoughts. They are often the core value proposition. [cite_start]Recent trends show AI-driven MVPs are now the standard [cite: 5]. If your core functionality relies on a Large Language Model (LLM), that integration is a "Must-have" feature.

The priority here is to find the minimum point of LLM integration that generates the most valuable data. [cite_start]Data Network Effects are the new moat [cite: 7319]. Your MVP features should be prioritized to generate proprietary data that improves your service over time—data your competitors cannot access.

• The AI MVP Priority: The one feature that gathers the most unique, proprietary training and reinforcement data.
• The Goal: Not just product-market fit, but Data-Model-Product Fit.

You must also apply the minimum resources for maximum learning, leveraging modern tools. [cite_start]Rapid prototyping with no-code/low-code tools or the use of pre-trained models to deliver an AI-enhanced experience is paramount [cite: 10]. Speed to market is the ultimate MVP feature when competition can replicate your product in days.

Avoiding the Common Traps that Kill Startups

Humans ignore warnings, but every failure follows a predictable pattern. Failure is often rooted in ignoring clear rules of the game, especially during the vulnerability of the early MVP stage. Avoiding these mistakes is a form of prioritization itself.

• Trap 1: Copying Competitors Blindly. Never copy without validating fit for your specific target persona. [cite_start]What works for a giant market leader is often irrelevant or too late for your niche [cite: 8]. Winners study problems, not competitor features.
• [cite_start]
• Trap 2: Ignoring Silence. Many startups fail due to a lack of market need [cite: 8447]. If users are silent, you do not have Product-Market Fit. [cite_start]Silence is the worst form of rejection—it means total indifference, according to Rule #15 [cite: 9787]. The MVP must elicit a strong, measurable reaction.
• [cite_start]
• Trap 3: Building a "Perfect" Product. Overengineering is a constant threat [cite: 4]. Adding non-essential features before launch delays the most critical event: getting feedback. Feedback is the only resource that prevents market misalignment.

Your ability to prioritize correctly is directly linked to your capacity for ruthless self-correction and focus. The MVP is a disposable learning device. Treat it as such. Once you have enough information to justify the next investment, you either pivot or move to the Minimum Marketable Product (MMP) phase. Do not cling to a failing design because it took weeks to build.

Part IV: The Action Plan for Prioritizing Your MVP Features

You now understand the philosophy and the tools. Knowledge without action is worthless. Here is your condensed action plan to strategically prioritize your MVP features to win the early game.

1. Identify the Core Pain and the Single Job: Articulate the one acute problem you solve. Your MVP has one job only. Write it down: "Our MVP's job is to let a user do [Action] to achieve [Outcome] without using a single extraneous click."
2. Define the Persona and Metric: You must know who the initial user is and how to measure their success. Persona: Who is in so much pain they will tolerate a messy V1? Metric: What is the single success metric (e.g., Daily Active Users, a specific conversion rate, retention on a core feature) that validates demand?
3. Apply the MoSCoW Filter: Categorize every feature idea into Must-have, Should-have, Could-have. Build ONLY the Must-haves. Delay everything else. Do not confuse a competitive feature with a core job feature.
4. Optimize for High Impact, Low Effort: Filter your Must-haves based on the greatest return on effort. Focus on the quick, impactful feature set that delivers value quickly. Fast feedback is more valuable than robust code.
5. Integrate the Feedback Loop: Ensure the final, prioritized MVP design forces a measurable user action and gathers the necessary data (e.g., direct qualitative feedback via in-app surveys, usage data, crash reports). Do not ship without mechanisms to learn immediately.

Most humans fail by being too ambitious at the start. They fall in love with their idea and ignore the market. Your job is to fall in love with the problem, not the product. When you successfully prioritize MVP features based on minimum required learning, you play the game optimally.

Game has rules. You now know them. Most humans do not. This is your advantage.