[sturza]

There are several steps missing from:

A startup founder uses AI to create an MVP

to

They secure funding based on the demo

to

They find themselves unable to move beyond that initial prototype

I have trouble believing tech investors throwing money towards a founder that shows a vibe coded product without anything else. The product might be vibe coded, BUT the founder show some traction or discovered a new market or something besides a demo. It does not really matter how a founder did the MVP, they did not create google. They just showed, through the MVP, something to investors. What happens next, after money, i doubt it's vibe coded.

[leray_J]

I agree with your point about the funding process being oversimplified. However, I've seen many founders become emotionally attached to their MVP, convinced it's good enough to scale without fundamental rethinking. They push forward with what's essentially a throwaway prototype instead of rebuilding it properly with lessons learned from initial user feedback. And some people are just cheap by nature. Last point is a huge one, even when funding is good enough. Does not make sense to make, I've seen it.

[sturza]

>However, I've seen many founders become emotionally attached to their MVP, convinced it's good enough to scale without fundamental rethinking.

i have no doubt, but this has nothing to do with the MVP being vibe coded or not - this has something to do with the (technical)experience of the founder + other personality traits

[GuySake]

I see pre seed round going to millions before there is an app. And I've been called as last resort to help people fix their app in the weekend because national TV was coming next Monday.

I can 100% see AI worsen and accelerate that kind of things.

[sturza]

Exactly my point, this has nothing to do with how the MVP was made. Dubious investment rounds exist with or without vibe coding anyway.