[jonnathanson]

"4. Their MVP doesn't even work"

Well, hold on a second here. This really depends on what stage you're joining in. If you're joining a super-early, pre-product/market fit startup, this is almost to be expected. Rare is the MVP that immediately and conclusively achieves fit in the market. More often than not, there are several iterations, if not major pivots, before a startup achieves any measure of fit. The product itself has to work from a technical perspective——but it may well be janky and unreliable for the first ~6 months of its existence, and that's ok. (So long as people seem to like it, and are willing to put up with its rough edges.)

Now, if you're joining a well-funded and more ostensibly established company that doesn't seem to have fit, but is focused nevertheless on raising even more money...that's a bright red flag. Stay away. Stay far away.

These are two different scenarios. There's also a lot of grey area in between them. There is such a thing as educated risk-taking (early early startup; you know it might not work) and unnecessary risk-taking (company has raised $$$ without fit, and seems hell-bent on "scaling" what it doesn't actually have). Knowing the difference makes all the difference.

[brotoss]

No, you're totally right. They were like 18 months in when I joined up, and I slowly began to realize the product was mostly vaporware.

Also right on point with the bright red flag...they had just closed an initial round for enough money to grow..yet the founder kept telling us about these unnamed investors who claimed the company was worth more and that we should keep raising. On top of that, founders always kept claiming "partnerships" with big name companies were always on the way but NEVER materialized. I basically started looking for another job 3 months in

[EpicEng]

The OP said "doesn't even work", which I took to mean "not viable, not minimally viable". That "V" is quite an important differentiator. Sure, it's not perfect, but it should be minimally viable, and that includes... "working".

[jonnathanson]

I interpreted the OP's use of "MVP" to mean the founders' self-proclaimed "MVP," not necessarily an actually viable product. To your point, if it were actually viable, then a "viable" product that "doesn't even work" would be a contradiction in terms.

[derefr]

There are many edge-cases where a product can be viable without actually working. They mostly come down to markets where the buyers are affected by principal-agent problems, and thus are willing to buy something that "doesn't work" for the principal's use-case, as long as it matches the incentives the principal has put upon them.

For example, it's very easy to sell things to defense [sub]contractors. They're not spending their own money; and, in fact, the more money they hand out to others, the more they can consume as a margin. As long as what they get in return matches the strict definition of a few check-boxes, they can't be blamed.