It's difficult to work out if the author is saying that his startup ended up 'fat', or that it would have been better if the startup had been 'fatter'. I'd arg

It's difficult to work out if the author is saying that his startup ended up 'fat', or that it would have been better if the startup had been 'fatter'. I'd argue the problem was the former. It sounds like they spent a large part of the runway on things that were not part of the MVP (patents, funnel, extra employees, etc). This is exactly what the concept of 'lean startup' is designed to avoid - 'lean startup' and 'mvp' means you throw out everything that isn't targeting on creating a product that people will buy. You don't throw out parts of the product itself to be lean, you throw out everything that isn't required for the core offering. By the sound of it, the author threw out the core offering and focused on the 'fat'. EDIT: The 'viable' in MVP is a very specific word that is straight out of the dictionary definition. As from Google dictionary: vi·a·ble /ˈvīəbəl/ Adjective Capable of working successfully; feasible: "the proposed investment was economically viable". Very clear. The MVP for humans going to space is a billion dollar ecosystem including runways, safety checks, logistics, long range communications, etc. An MVP can still cost a billion dollars - MVP does not mean cheap.