VC which is currently off the table and “in the trash where it belongs”. So I would personal love to see the term MVP redefined more in line with what many of us imagine it to be.
However, I completely accept if Maidsafe chooses to keep the current definition which you highlighted.
Looking at the release programme blog post (link in OP I think), which doesn’t mention MVP but does give plenty of details about the entire process and order of development to a fully functioning product, I think rather than redefine it MaidSafe may have chosen to drop it to avoid further confusion (e.g. multiple definitions at different times is not a good idea IMO on reflection).
I suggest that instead we familiarise ourselves with the terms in that blog post and use them, because MVP already means different things to different people, and adding a new definition isn’t going to help that.
Also, redefining it could create scope for unfounded accusations about impropriety against MaidSafe.
Good point @happybeing
So from the blog:
"the main phases of the impending and iterative release process. There are:
Alpha – the core network and fundamental functionality is provided via an initial implementation, this is the first public testing phase.
Beta – alpha implementations are reiterated and improved, based on user feedback.
Release candidate – the fundamental feature set is stabilised to provide greater security, resilience and efficiency.
Release – privacy, security, freedom!"
Where as the MVP terminology clarified is:
MVP - Is a Minimum Viable Product to form the basis for a VC investment which is currently off the table. MVP is not network complete and does not include messaging or safecoins.
MVP has one very clear meaning for VCs. And this is not an MVP, not for VCs not for Angel Investors.
I defined clearly what are the differences between a PoC and an MVP.
You can’t say this is purple without blue, because there is a name for that, red.
IF you insist, “this is not red, we define it blueless purple”, you start to look really weird if not scammy for the rest of the world who gets colors.
A PoC is a PoC and a MVP is an MVP. There is no such thing as a non-core feature MVP, that by definition is a PoC.
@Blindsite2k details it more verbosely and his explanation is spot on.
Regards
The term MVP comes from the business world, the telltale of such origins is in the later word of the acronym: The P of PRODUCT.
Have you heard the following maxim? “A FEATURE IS NOT A PRODUCT, PRODUCT IS NOT A BUSINESS, BUSINESS IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION”
This is the first thing you are asked by VCs when you bring an “idea” to them, the question is: is this a feature or a product?
Your 3 points are not different interpretations of what Viable means, but an actual checklist to confirm that it is.
Maybe Messaging is not necessary to be included in the MVP, but Safecoin is crucial.
Oh this has me chuckling uncontrollably…it hits my sentiments exactly. @happybeing I mean no criticism or offense and I’m not patronizing you; you have been a great teacher and educator on here for years and I have the highest respect. I know I’m probably a bit off in my vision of this color (MVP) and I just want to know (Like everyone else here) if what we are calling purple is actually red to everyone else? It seems “SafeCoin” is a “core feature” that has to be there and functional before we can say the actual network is the “product.”
This was especially funny for me because I literally cannot tell the difference between blue and purple…never have.
I’m not crazy about the current definition of MVP either but I agree with happybeing that redefining the MVP will only cause more confusion at this point. Better to consider the MVP (as it is currently defined) what will be released after these community tests are completed but before Alpha (which I am assuming will include the core functions we are hoping for such as safecoins).
Alpha – the core network and fundamental functionality is provided via an initial implementation, this is the first public testing phase.
Emphasis added to public vs the community testing phase we are currently in.
I’m not sure why you think I’d think/feel that. I just see you enjoying an amusing comment 
The respect and appreciation is mutual, I hope you are aware!
Meanwhile David’s omnipresence reveals itself with the appearance of the first like on the above post… in a few seconds.
Thank you David for your ever tolerant, appreciative and constructive presence amongst this community. I personally learn a lot from you and how you respond and contribute here, and I’m sure we are all influenced positively by you.
For me it’s not been a matter of redefining it. It’s a matter of figuring out what it means and why the term exists at all. I see better now, but still think it’s fuzzy.
It may be fuzzy to you, but to me, the arguments make it clear that it is simply poorly chosen, and not representative of the actual intent of what it is to be.
Keep in mind that crust and routing are the two biggest hurdles, unfortunately, they’re first. After that, messaging and safecoin will be quite quick in coming (I hope) because there’s already a foundation. An actual network may not be an MVP per se, but its a huge milestone.
I realize that what caused the confusion is that I was ready to cast the term out in favor of the new development lineup, but when I said in our interview that it had been more or less replaced, David said that the new alpha/beta/release candidate would basically result in the MVP, which was a network that would store your data forever.
In the interview it makes sense, but if you take it as a definition as he stated it, it confuses things a bit. So I apologize for making a big deal out of it. 
MVP is basically a burned term. David resurrected it for me, though I see his point if taken in the context of the interview. Not definitive though. 
Just some friendly feedback, could you try and make your text a bit more concise? I want to read all the comments in this thread, while tempted to skip your giant paragraph. If all that text is needed, maybe make one key line bold?
I do not see SafeCoin as being inextricably linked to an MVP because as has been established, full network functionality will NOT be included in the MVP (i.e. network complete). In my mind, network complete goes hand in hand with SafeCoin. Couldn’t puts and gets be managed with mock tokens before the platform goes beta?
I get the sense that @dallyshalla is really itching to push SafeCoin live when the SAFE Network is ready, but that might need another thread entirely; at what point will SafeCoin functionality be “plugged in” to the SAFE Network? (When the full SC wallet client is ready, when the SAFE Network is in Beta? etc.)
There are a few things here. Safecoin is a SrtucturedData type of data. Currently there are discussions and RFC debates about allowing (or more specifically howto) low level API access to structured data.
Safecoin is managed by the network in terms of creation, but is not any different apart from that really. So with access to structured data anyone can take any type, say 999 and make that test safecoin that anyone can create and make wallets, exchanges etc. with.
Messaging is separate and in a branch at the moment.
An MVP can be considered from what we have now to full features. What we are aiming for is Alpha release of a network that is autonomous and you can store/retrieve data from. This would initially mean all data storage is free and farming is not required. As we progress through releases it moves to test-safecoin /messaging while we test and do security analysis.
So MVP can be construed in so many ways. A DHT with no safecoin is an MVP, likewise a website publisher etc. This is where confusion sits really. Our approach is to ensure we have a working network and move from there. It’s almost there as tests show, so it’s now a case of moving forward.
Lots and lots of improvements have been made via the recent tests and perhaps some more will be required, but looks good and big improvements are happening fast. We will not over-Engineer this, but will deliver incrementally.
A lot of confusion is possibly my fault and many others definitions being different. It all boils down to us iterating and feeding back quickly for next iteration. These will be releases shortly (Alpha - Beta etc.) and will get features added. Minimum though will be a working network with client access we are happy with, that’s close now I would hope with all the recent work.
“Are we there yet” → just round the next corner 
who knowns the results of tests in advance, but the parts we wanted we got and addressed/addressing now. It’s all we can do and I appreciate perhaps message better.
A lot of confusion is possibly my fault and many others definitions being different.
I’ve probably said this before, but it’s absolutely outstanding that you’re replying directly to forum messages – second to none for community cultivation and a happy benefit for the image of the entire network’s brand (for want of a better term).
Having said that, you can’t please everyone, especially when hundreds of people are reading your words written under pressure through their own (who knows what biased material) lenses. 
You sure you are sleeping @dirvine , better get some rest. We can wait, need you healthy for lots of years to come.
Completely off the table. All those accidentally printed coins are now being sold into the market (as a loan) to keep the project going. Hope MVP gets off the ground before that money runs out as well.
Absolutely 100% correct!
What’s actually confusing is calling a PoC an MVP. We should stick to commonly understood terms/definitions. I agree with piluso. We should use the language the rest of the world is using in this space and call a Poc a PoC when it walks and quacks like one and call a MVP an MVP when it also walks and quacks like one