Trying to decide gamification architecture for our mhealth prediabetes reversal product?

The idea of an MVP is 'minimum, viable' ... If you feel you need a "good amount" of funding, I would challenge if you are minimum enough. Obviously, without knowing the details of your product, your ideal customer, or what need you will solve, it is hard to help expose what is necessary in an MVP and what is a Phase II or Phase III feature. I am happy to help you work through this, or answer specific questions, to get you rolling. Just book a call with some times that will work for you. Regardless, I would love to know more about it and how it goes after launch. To your success, -Shaun

Consider instead where a $2500 price point puts you. I use a selling technique called Monetizing The Problem, and in that process I get the prospect to calculate the size of their problem. Then I charge 5-10% of that figure. There's never any resistance, because they see where the number comes from, how it's based on reality--and a number THEY came up with (not me). So here you are at $2500. Let's be conservative and say that's 5% of the size of the problem. Meaning you are trying to help them make $50K in sales over the next year. What kind of a business has a revenue goal of $50K? A sole proprietor who's just trying to get by? Is that your target customer? Really think about this. A serious SME won't play at the $2500 price point, because it's too low. They know the vendor can't commit enough resources to do the job they really need done. For instance a business with only four high-value employees plus the owner needs to bill at least $60K A MONTH to survive!! Why would they let you touch their marketing collateral (that's their website) for a mere $2500?! Stay at $2500 and you're attracting a really low level of client. If you have the horsepower to achieve more with the skills you have, then I highly recommend going after a better class of customer.

It's highly unlikely that you will be able to find competent full-stack mobile developers willing to work with you for equity, but if you do, "fair" compensation would be 50% or more of the equity in the Company. Approaching any developer with just an idea, diminishes your credibility as a potential co-founder. Here's why: If you're non-technical, you must show a "relentless resourcefulness" in moving your idea forward. This means finding the money necessary to get an MVP or even click-able prototype completed to show that while you might not be technical, you have the ability to raise money, and have enough product sense that you can articulate that into a prototype. If you can't raise or spend the relatively small amount of money required to successfully build a prototype, what evidence are you providing that developer that you are going to be able to create value for the business long-term? Full-stack mobile developers (although this is often quite a misnomer) are one of the most in-demand skill-sets of all Silicon Valley companies. That means that you're competing against established companies that can pay top dollar, and still provide meaningful equity incentives as well as recently funded startups who have further along the road in turning their idea into reality. I would suggest that you look at hiring contractors (I know of some great mobile dev shops that are reasonable) to build your first version. Expect to go solo at least until you have some form of early prototype. Then, you're in a much better position to attract a technical co-founder. Happy to talk you through any of this at any point.

It varies and it's very very specific to what you want to develop. The concrete design of your circuit matters. Also prototype building costs are usually a factor 10-100 higher than series. If you already have your prototype then you can shop around various manufacturing companies. To do that, you need Gerber files (your PCB design) and a bill of materials. You also need to think about casing: designing it and creating the mold is expensive. If you don't have your prototype yet, I recommend having it engineered in eastern Europe. Custom engineering is cheap there and high quality. IP protection is a problem. One thing to do is to distribute the work to different manufacturers. For the design phase you are safer if you design your prototype in Europe or the US where international patent laws apply. I could give you more specific advise in a phone call, getting to know a bit better what you are trying to build.

Whoa, start by reading the Lean book again; you're questions suggest you are making a classical mistake made by too many entrepreneurs who live and breath Lean Startup. An MVP is not the least you can show someone to evaluate whether or not building it is a good idea; an MVP is, by it's very definition, the Minimum Viable Product - not less than that. What is the minimum viable version of a professional collaboration network in which users create a professional profile visible to others? A website on which users can register, have a profile, and in some way collaborate with others: via QA, chat, content, etc. No? A minimum viable product is used not to validate if something is a good idea but that you can make it work; that you can acquire users through the means you think viable, you can monetize the business, and that you can learn from the users' experience and optimize that experience by improving the MVP. Now, that doesn't mean you just go build your MVP. I get the point of your question, but we should distinguish where you're at in the business and if you're ready for an MVP or you need to have more conversations with potential users. Worth noting, MOST entrepreneurs are ready to go right to an MVP. It's a bit of a misleading convention to think that entrepreneurs don't have a clue about the industry in which they work and what customers want; that is to say, you shouldn't be an entrepreneur trying to create this professional collaboration network if you don't know the market, have done some homework, talked to peers and friends, have some experience, etc. and already know that people DO want such a thing. Presuming you've done that, what would you present to potential users BEFORE actually building the MVP? For what do you need nothing more than some slides? It's not a trick question, you should show potential users slides and validate that what you intend to build is the best it can be. I call it "coffee shop testing" - build a slide of the homepage and the main screen used by registered users; sit in a coffee shop, and buy coffee for anyone who will give you 15 minutes. Show them the two slides and listen; don't explain, ONLY ask.... - For what is this a website? - Would you sign up for it? Why? - Would you tell your friends? Why? - What would you pay for it? Don't explain ANYTHING. If you have to explain something, verbally, you aren't ready to build your MVP - potential customers don't get it. Keep working with that slide alone until you get enough people who say they will sign up and know, roughly, what people will pay. THEN build your MVP and introduce it first to friends, family, peers, etc. to get your earliest adopters. At some point you're going to explore investors. There is no "ready" as the reaction from investors will entirely depend on who you're talking to, why, how much you need, etc. If you want to talk to investors with only the slides as you need capital to build the MVP, your investors are going to be banks, grants, crowdfunding, incubators, and MAYBE angels (banks are investors?! of course they are, don't think that startups only get money from people with cash to give you for equity). Know that it's VERY hard to raise money at this stage; why would I invest in your idea when all you've done is validate that people probably want it - you haven't built anything. A bank will give you a loan to do that, not many investors will take the risk. Still, know not that your MVP is "ready" but that at THAT stage, you have certain sources of capital with which you could have a conversation. When you build the MVP, those choices change. Now that you have something, don't talk to a bank, but a grant might still be viable. Certainly: angels, crowdfunding, accelerators, and maybe even VCs become interested. The extent to which they are depends on the traction you have relative to THEIR expectations - VCs are likely to want some significant adoption or revenue whereas Angels should be excited for your early adoption and validation and interested in helping you scale.