[martin-adams]

Assuming these are bugs which have workarounds and don't cause things like data corruption. Then it probably falls into the adage from advertising "50% of all advertising is a waste, you just don't know which 50%".

Another way to look at it is the delayed effect of doing nothing in either area. Bugs creeping in over the months and years may only become a problem when a competitor starts to be noticeably more stable.

Features that are delayed may have a delayed effect of a competitor getting ahead of you in the market and launching months before you'd be ready.

So I would say, "it depends". If you're in a growth market and are trying to capture market share, features might be best before non-critical bugs.

If you're in a stable market serving a huge amount of people, then fixing bugs has a much larger impact on your users.

You also have to consider the team and their morale over time. Too much churning through low value bugs can be demoralising where individuals might need some type of higher level thinking and creativity.

If it were me, I'd look at bugfix only sprints and adjust the frequency based on the above factors.