startups Archives

The End of the MVP and the Dawn of the Attention-First Startup

6 days ago By cumeadi

After more than twelve years in startups and venture capital, you learn to recognize the patterns. You see the cyclical nature of hype, the ebb and flow of capital, and the perennial challenges of building something from nothing. You get a feel for the rhythm of the game.

But this isn’t just a change in rhythm. The ground beneath our feet is fundamentally shifting. A handful of powerful, accelerating forces are converging to rewrite the startup playbook I’ve known for two decades. The old pages are not just yellowed; they are becoming obsolete.

The ability to build and tell stories is cheaper and faster than ever. The cost of getting feedback on those stories and products has collapsed, thanks in large part to AI. Yet, in this world of infinite creation, the currency of human attention has never been scarcer or more valuable. All of this is happening as capital markets are tightening, demanding a clearer path to liquidity than the speculative bets of the last decade.

These aren’t separate trends. They are interlocking gears in a new machine. And for founders, investors, and even consumers, understanding this new machine is a matter of survival.

For Founders: The MVP is Dead. Long Live the MVT.

Let’s be blunt: The Minimum Viable Product is dead.

The classic MVP was an answer to the question, “Can we build it?” It was a test of technical feasibility and a hedge against wasting engineering resources. But today, the answer to “Can we build it?” is almost always “Yes.” With modern tools and AI co-pilots, a small, determined team can build almost anything.

That is no longer the operative question. The new question is, “Should it exist?”

This shifts the core activity of a startup from building to testing. Welcome to the era of the MVT: the Minimum Viable Test. An MVT isn’t a clunky product; it can be a photorealistic landing page, a simulated demo, an AI-powered concierge service, or a targeted ad campaign for a product that doesn’t exist yet. Its goal isn’t to acquire users, but to acquire evidence.

The paradox is that while the cost of testing a hypothesis has collapsed, the cost of capturing attention has skyrocketed. In a world where anyone can generate a product, noise becomes the dominant market force. A functional app is now table stakes, not a differentiator.

This elevates a founder’s other skills to the forefront. The most valuable founders of the next decade won’t necessarily be the best engineers; they will be the best storytellers and community architects. They will understand that the most durable moat isn’t a block of code, but a block of dedicated, engaged people. The new playbook is to build the audience before you build the product. The distribution channel is the asset.

For Investors: Alpha is Shifting, and Capital Isn’t King

For years, the venture capitalist’s edge came from access: access to proprietary deal flow and access to information. Both are eroding. AI agents will soon be able to scan every GitHub repository, every academic paper, and every new business filing, surfacing interesting signals for anyone to see. The “I found it first” alpha is vanishing.

More profoundly, for many early-stage companies, a check is no longer the most valuable thing an investor can provide. When a founder can run a dozen MVTs on a shoestring budget to validate their core idea, their primary bottleneck isn’t capital; it’s breaking through the noise.

They don’t need your money as much as they need your leverage.

The venture firm of the future cannot be a simple financial instrument. It must become a platform for leverage. The new value-add isn’t just a network of downstream investors; it’s a proprietary media engine that can guarantee an audience. It’s a stable of specialized AI agents that can automate a startup’s back office. It’s a data co-op that gives portfolio companies an unfair analytical advantage.

This demands a change in how we, as investors, evaluate founders. We must move beyond pedigree and PowerPoints to ask tougher questions. Is this founder a master of the MVT loop? Can they build a tribe? Can they tell a story that bends the attention market in their favor?

In this new reality, the generalist fund will be squeezed. The winners will be hyper-specialized firms that create a gravitational pull for the very best talent and ideas in a narrow domain, not just because of their capital, but because of the unique leverage they provide.

For All of Us: The New Gatekeepers

This rewiring changes the game for everyone. The line between consumer, fan, and early-stage backer has completely blurred. Through our clicks, our shares, our feedback, and our direct-to-creator funding, we are all on the cap table now. Our attention is the new seed round.

This brings a paradox. We have access to an unprecedented explosion of niche products and services tailored to every conceivable interest. Yet, we also face a tsunami of AI-generated sludge, low-effort “startups,” and sophisticated misinformation. In this environment, our most critical skill as individuals will be discernment.

We are trading one set of gatekeepers—the VCs in Sand Hill Road boardrooms—for another: the opaque, ever-shifting algorithms of TikTok, Google, and X. We have democratized access to the arena, but a new, invisible emperor still decides who thrives with a flick of an algorithmic thumb. Are we truly better off? I’m not so sure.

What I am sure of is that the game has changed. It’s no longer about who has the capital to build a fortress, but who has the leverage to command attention in a world of infinite creation. It’s a faster, more volatile, and intensely more personal game than ever before. It demands that we all—founders, funders, and fans—become more intentional about where we place our most valuable asset: our attention.

product · startups · Technology

The “Break Things” Era is Over: AI’s Ethical Emergency

4 weeks ago By cumeadi

For far too long, the gospel of “move fast and break things” has dictated the rhythm of product development, especially in Big Tech. It wasn’t just a catchy slogan; it was a fundamental, often flawed, philosophy. User experience (UX) research? Too often relegated to a rubber stamp, validating predetermined instincts rather than challenging them. Behavioral analysis? A perpetual rearview mirror, confirming what users did, rather than anticipating what they shouldn’t have to do, or what profound influence our creations might wield.

This backward approach, ironically, now faces its ultimate test: Artificial Intelligence.

AI products aren’t passive tools. Large language models, predictive algorithms, and personalized recommendation engines don’t merely respond to users; they co-create experience. They shape behavior with an intimacy and scale we’ve never before witnessed. Yet, here we are, attempting to apply the lagging UX processes of a bygone era to the most leading-edge technology humanity has ever conceived. It’s like trying to navigate a hyperspace jump with a map drawn for a horse and buggy.

The Headlights We Desperately Need

The stakes are no longer just about usability; they’re about humanity. When design fails in the age of AI, the consequences aren’t minor inconveniences. We’re talking algorithmic harm, embedded discrimination, the rampant spread of disinformation, and a deep, systemic erosion of trust.

Consider the landscape: AI systems are increasingly mediating our most fundamental human experiences. They:

Personalize education, finance, healthcare, and justice.
Predict and influence our mental health, moods, and purchasing.
Mediate interpersonal relationships — from dating apps to social feeds.

To continue treating human insight as an afterthought in this context isn’t just negligent; it’s dangerous. We need a fundamental shift in perspective. UX and behavioral research must become the headlights of AI product development, proactively illuminating the treacherous road ahead. We can no longer afford to learn from where we’ve already crashed.

From MVP to MAP: Orienting Ourselves in a New Reality

The traditional product playbook preaches the gospel of the Minimum Viable Product (MVP): build something simple, get it to market fast, and learn from user feedback. A noble idea, perhaps, for a simpler time.

But with AI, “learning from failure” takes on a chilling new meaning. It can translate directly into:

Reinforcing societal biases at scale.
Violating privacy with unprecedented reach.
Misleading users into financial or emotional distress.
It scales misinformation or addiction loops with devastating efficiency.

Failure here isn’t just a costly pivot; it’s a profound ethical and societal liability.

This is precisely why we must abandon the MVP mindset for something far more critical: the Minimum Aligned Product (MAP).

A MAP isn’t just “viable”; it’s oriented. It’s built with intentional alignment:

Aligned with user values, not just their clicks.
Aligned with cognitive and emotional safety – a non-negotiable baseline.
Aligned with social, ethical, and cultural expectations – understanding context before deployment.
Informed by probabilistic models of user behavior before launch – anticipating impact, not just reacting to it.

MVPs are about iteration. MAPs are about orientation. One risks incremental improvements; the other guards against catastrophic misdirection.

Introducing HAI/UX: A Compass for Human-AI Insight and Experience

To operationalize this critical shift, we propose HAI/UX – a framework for Human-AI Insight and Experience. This framework elevates the role of research and data science from a supporting act to a central, guiding force in AI-driven product development.

Ethics-Centered Experimentation: A/B testing, in its current form, can be a masterclass in optimizing manipulation. HAI/UX demands ethics red-teaming be woven into the very fabric of experimentation. We must proactively ask: Who might be harmed? What cognitive biases are we unknowingly exploiting? Is consent genuinely clear, or merely a click?
Continuous Behavioral Forecasting: Forget static personas. We need to leverage large-scale, longitudinal behavioral datasets to predict user adaptation, identify emerging risk patterns, and flag ethical flashpoints before they become crises. Imagine, for instance, forecasting how patients might dangerously overtrust an AI medical chatbot under duress, then designing in deliberate friction to mitigate that risk.
Probabilistic Personas: The rigid personas of traditional UX are wholly insufficient for AI’s fluidity. We must embrace personas as dynamic, probability fields shaped by context, time, and interaction with AI. A “young voter,” for example, isn’t a single demographic; they’re a complex probability field of disengagement, activism, conspiracy exposure, and curiosity—each activated by different AI nudges. Designing for this variance is paramount.
Agent Co-Design: As AI agents evolve into co-actors in user journeys, we must pivot from designing for users to prototyping with them. Invite users to co-create with the AI: How should it express uncertainty? When should it ask for permission? Should it reflect user values or challenge them? This isn’t just empathy; it’s essential collaboration.
Embedded Insight Pipelines: UX and ethical insights cannot remain quarterly reports. They must become live signals, monitored by engineering teams alongside latency and uptime. Design becomes a continuous feedback loop, not a retrospective analysis.

The Broader Implication: Building With People, Not Just For Them

This isn’t merely about tweaking product roadmaps. It’s about fundamentally rethinking how we build systems that impact human lives. HAI/UX shifts the paradigm toward:

Inclusion: Not a box to tick, but a dynamic, shared governance process.
Accountability: Researchers as proactive watchdogs, embedded guardians, not just detached observers.
Trust: Built not through slick PR campaigns, but through transparency, deliberate slow thinking, and a commitment to design justice.

The Call to Action: From Sprints to Stewardship

If we fail to evolve our product strategy, AI will undoubtedly outpace our ability to humanely manage its profound impact. The time for naive optimism or blind acceleration is over.

This means a collective re-orientation:

Funders must recognize and invest in UX and ethical research as core infrastructure, not disposable overhead.
Founders must treat behavioral researchers as product architects, not just focus group facilitators.
Engineers must learn to incorporate friction as a deliberate feature, not merely a bug to be smoothed away.
Designers must shift their fundamental question from “What’s the fastest way to get here?” to “What’s the safest and most equitable way to bring everyone with us?”

We don’t need to move slower. We need to move smarter. And critically, we need to move with humans firmly at the wheel, not tied up in the trunk.

startups · Technology · venture capital

What They Don’t Tell You About Launching & Scaling a Startup

3 months ago By cumeadi

Over the years, I’ve launched companies, advised others, raised capital, missed signals, hired wrong, scaled too fast, pivoted too late—and learned a few things in the process. Recently, I had the chance to give a guest lecture at Harvard on what it really takes to launch and scale a startup.

Here’s a condensed version of what I shared—less theory, more scar tissue.

1. The Myth of the Perfect Idea

Most people wait too long to start, thinking they need the idea. Truth is, your first idea probably isn’t the one that works. And that’s okay.

The founders of YouTube started with a dating site. Slack came out of a failed video game. Airbnb got rejected by dozens of investors before the world caught up.

Great companies don’t emerge from perfect ideas—they emerge from persistent founders who are obsessed with a small, overlooked problem and are willing to listen, adapt, and evolve quickly.

Start small. Start obsessed. Start anyway.

2. Validation Isn’t What You Think It Is

Early-stage founders often mistake interest for intent. A friend says, “I’d totally use that!” or a customer replies, “Let me know when it’s live!”

That’s not validation.

Real validation looks like time, money, effort—commitment. A pre-order. A referral. A workaround. If someone is solving the problem without you, that’s a signal.

Build scrappy prototypes. Get real feedback. Watch what people do, not what they say.

3. Your Job is to Be a Signal Processor

In the early days, everything feels like noise. Metrics are small. Feedback is conflicting. You’re constantly wondering, “Is this a real insight or just noise?”

The best founders develop a kind of radar—they can sense patterns early. They don’t just listen to feedback, they decode it. They don’t overreact to every data point, but they don’t ignore smoke either.

Learn fast. Move fast. Let your ego get out of the way of the signal.

4. Your Role Will Keep Changing

The skills that get you from zero to one are not the same skills that get you to ten.

At first, you’re the builder, designer, marketer, customer support—all of it. But if you’re growing, your job becomes less about doing and more about enabling.

Suddenly, you’re managing people. Then managing managers. Then setting vision, hiring execs, shaping culture.

Every six months, your calendar should look different. And if you don’t actively evolve, your startup will outgrow you.

5. Hiring Is Where Startups Break

Startups don’t die from competition—they die from internal drag. And most of that drag comes from hiring the wrong people.

At the early stage, a bad hire isn’t a setback—it’s a time bomb.

Look for ownership mindset, adaptability, and speed of learning. Hire people who run toward problems, not away from them. And remember: culture isn’t what you say—it’s what you tolerate.

6. Distribution > Product

A great product without a distribution strategy is a tree falling in a forest.

Founders love to build—but often neglect how the product will reach the customer. Distribution isn’t just ads. It’s strategy, channels, timing, partnerships, communities.

Ask yourself early:

Who needs this right now?
Where do they hang out?
What do they already trust?
How will they find out about you?

Don’t just find product-market fit. Find product-channel fit.

7. Founder Psychology Is 80% of the Game

No one talks enough about the emotional cost of building something from scratch.

The highs are high, the lows are existential. You’ll doubt yourself constantly. You’ll pour everything into something that most people won’t understand for a long time.

Protect your mental health. Build a tribe of other builders. Get outside your own head. Journal. Reflect. Don’t fuse your identity with your startup—it’s not you, it’s a thing you’re building.

8. Fundraising Is a Game of Narrative and Status

Raising money isn’t just about traction or spreadsheets—it’s about story, timing, and social proof.

Warm intros beat cold emails. FOMO beats logic. Being the 5th meeting in a week beats being the 1st in a month.

VCs are in the pattern recognition business. Your job is to become a pattern they can recognize—without losing your authenticity.

It’s a game. Know the rules. But don’t let them define you.

9. Luck Is Real (But You Can Make More of It)

Yes, talent and execution matter. But so does timing. So does luck.

Survivorship bias is everywhere. Many great founders didn’t “fail”—they just didn’t get lucky enough.

You can’t control luck, but you can create more surface area for it:

Publish your journey
Show up where collisions happen
Help others before asking for anything

Luck favors the visible. The curious. The consistent.

10. Your Real Advantage: Speed of Learning

At the end of the day, startups don’t win because they know more. They win because they learn faster.

The best founders build tight learning loops:
Build → Measure → Learn → Adjust → Repeat

They get feedback quickly. They don’t fall in love with their own ideas. They evolve with the market—not against it.

If you’re learning faster than the competition, you’re winning—even if it doesn’t look like it yet.

Parting Thoughts

I closed my Harvard talk with three things I hope every founder remembers:

3 Hard Truths:

No one cares about your startup until you succeed—get over it.
Most of your assumptions are wrong—prove them fast.
Building is easy. Focus is hard. Focus wins.

3 Mantras That Helped Me:

Strong opinions, loosely held
Default to action
Be relentlessly curious

One Ask:

If you’re thinking about launching—start.
Not when it’s perfect. Not when you’re “ready.”
Start where you are, with what you know, and with who you are.

That’s how every story begins.

Want help applying any of these ideas to your startup? Feel free to reach out or drop me a note—I always love hearing what people are building.

#MentalNote · History · Politics · startups · venture capital

It’s Time To Build Pt. 2

5 years ago By cumeadi

Marc Andreessen, one of the co-founders of Andreessen Horowitz, wrote a timely piece during the height of the US COVID-19 crisis. Titled “ It’s Time to Build “. It’s essentially a call to arms for builders to focus on creating a better reality where we’re prepared for tomorrow’s challenges. It was a collective call to create a more conducive environment for builders and sounded like a call to get back to what made the United States great; making and creating.

Fast track to George Floyd’s death and we’ve seen a significant outpouring of support and collective action around ending racism and destroying racist institutions. Now more than ever, there’s an awakening to the fact that black people are suffering from systems built to disenfranchise and systematically ensure they’re held down. We’re at a pivotal point globally. We’ve all seen the decentralized protests around the world demanding change and justice for George Floyd and others who have died at the hands of those sworn to protect them. People, now more than ever, want to tear down and rebuild these institutions.

As we think of building and tearing down institutions we should make sure we’re focused on building a more inclusive type of institution. The only way we’ll really achieve the promise of a future where there’s equality for all is to ensure everyone is in the workshop as we’re building. We know this is currently not the reality. Black people lag behind on most indicators that would lead them to be in the rooms to be a part of this building process. In venture capital, for example, where the rubber meets the road when it comes to building, the stats are abysmal. For those who aren’t familiar with the venture capital space, here’s some data to provide some color:

77.1 percent of founders were white—regardless of gender and education.
Just one percent of venture-backed founders were black.
Women-funded startups received only 9 percent of investments.
Latino founders made up 1.8 percent of those receiving funding, while Middle Easterners totaled 2.8 percent.
Asians were the second most-backed group, making up 17.7 percent of venture-backed founders.

From Ratemyinvestor.com

We can’t build this new reality if there’s this much inequality in the venture capital industry. I don’t think individual actors are deliberately enforcing inequality – I believe the “system” of risk capital is flawed and perpetuates actors to not act in an equitable way. Venture capital is just one example. There are disparities in healthcare, education, job creation, urban development, and etc. Everywhere we look, there are systems that disproportionally affect black people, and most of the time, for the worst.

If we aren’t careful, we’ll build on the same bias and power structures and we’ll be back in the same spot 20 years from now wondering how we got to where we are.

Africa · business · startups · Technology

Strengths and Weaknesses of Nigeria’s Tech Ecosystem with Chika Umeadi from Tiphub

7 years ago By cumeadi

I got a chance to talk about the Nigerian Tech Ecosystem with Andrew from Global Startup Movement Podcast. We discussed the following:

Outside of access to capital, what are the common challenges for Nigerian entrepreneurs I works with?
How has deal flow coming out of Nigeria evolved since I started Tiphub?
Have I seen an uptick in startup activity outside of Lagos?
Whats the balance of Venture vs. Angel capital in Nigeria?

Listen to it on: