If you are coming into an existing market, then you aren't building an MVP to validate the idea, you are building an MVP to match the table stakes -- the feature set that is the minimum set of features that even put you as a viable player in the market. Match that in an MVP, then add on your differentiators.

I've watched teams focus on differentiators before table stakes, and waste literally millions of dollars and years of work, expecting one or two cool features to win the market... but that is not how it works.

Thanks for your opinion, I think the right thing to do is to focus on products that have small table stakes, so the MVP won't take a lot of time to build, even adding a few extra features, and therefore, we can enter the market quickly like a good player

One reason to build an MVP is to force founders to talk to users.

The reason this is important is many founders will avoid doing it.

Founders avoid it because talking to users is mostly hearing rejection.

One of the ways founders avoid talking to users is to invent arguments about why it is not necessary to talk to them.

Another attraction is inventing arguments is easier than finding and talking to users.

Good luck.

Thank you for your feedback, it's true that most of the founders believe that the product will generate income passively without any communication with users, so I think good support with acceptable features is much better than bad support with good features

I am talking about building before talking to users as the problem MVP’s address .