[contingencies]

(1) Validation via MVP for SaaS is very different to, say, a complex hardware product. (2) What people say they will do and what they will actually do are two different things. (3) Take in to account the potential for market shift (new competitors, technology change) during your delivery period and have risk mitigation strategies (eg. pivot/sale/exit). (4) Scratch a common itch. (5) Validate by proxy - see similar ventures gain traction in allied markets that demonstrate clients exist and investors have interest.

[dotvignesh]

Is it always a good sign when investors invest or show interest in a product? Asking this because I got shortlisted for an interview in a fellowship program. (They invest in my startup if I get selected, they shortlisted around 20 applicants)

[contingencies]

VCs are usually wrong. Angels are probably wrong even more. However, nobody at all showing interest might not be a great sign, either. Secondly and perhaps more importantly: don't confuse accelerator/incubator programs with investors per-se. The former group tend to be very focused on a specific period such as feasibility or pre-seed and in a poor case are actually consciously making their money out of systemically reselling the x% of the companies they bought in to for tea-and-biscuits at a higher valuation with high frequency and rapid turnaround. They can be very clearly misaligned with adding long-term value, and just want to push for a fast flip. That's why some will pressure for MVP/POC, stupid timeframes and in-person presentations even when it makes little sense technically or commercially for the venture itself to do so. It can be real rabbit/hat smoke-and-mirrors stuff. That's private equity in general.

[dotvignesh]

Thanks for the heads-up!