[dchuk]

This concept implies that it's possible to discover all possible scope before starting a project, which is almost always not the case on any project of relevant scale. This is waterfall.

The notion of "you'll get the rest of the money when the project is done" is toxic and dangerous, and implies that you can know what done means before you even start, and it's an objective and finite finish line you are approaching.

The reality is that you should be investing capital into resources over time to build towards a goal, and at regular intervals you should ask the question "are we done yet?". The answer should be based on what you have, not what's left in your backlog. Otherwise you'll descend into a groundhog day loop of checking boxes and completing tasks you came up with months ago without evaluating if what you already have built is good enough.

[wojcech]

> This concept implies that it's possible to discover all possible scope before starting a project, which is almost always not the case on any project of relevant scale. This is waterfall.

Difference would be that the team defines their own scope. But I see your point

> The notion of "you'll get the rest of the money when the project is done" is toxic and dangerous, and implies that you can know what done means before you even start, and it's an objective and finite finish line you are approaching.

This one I concede fully