How I Learned That Some Startup Problems Are Too Big For A Minimum Viable Product

By Daniel Kjellén

Typically, a first-time startup follows a familiar playbook: spotting a gap in the market, exhaustively refining the concept and pitch, and ultimately gaining the conviction that the solution is both revolutionary and bulletproof.

Then comes the daunting reality of product-market fit. Rather than reshaping an entire sector from the outset, founders are often compelled to zero in on a niche use case, dedicating their vital early years to proving scalability and profitability. Consequently, the grand vision gets placed on hold.

For most entrepreneurs, this remains the only viable path. Because investors take a gamble on first-time founders, smaller financial backing and a restricted initial product help mitigate everyone’s risk. However, certain ambitions demand total dedication right from the start—and having prior company-building experience proves invaluable when tackling them.

Lessons from the front line

Following the 2022 sale of my first company, Tink, to Visa for €1.8 billion (roughly $1.9 billion USD), I found myself in an entirely new position, and resting on a sun lounger was not part of it. My co-founder, Fredrik Hedberg, and I possessed our own substantial financial backing alongside a fresh entrepreneurial drive. For the first time, we had both the resources and the background required to pursue something genuinely transformative on a global scale.

Any founder knows that regulatory compliance is a grueling obstacle course. While scaling Tink across Europe to a team of 700 employees navigating numerous regulatory bodies, my colleagues and I frequently grew frustrated over minor wording adjustments, months-long review processes, and endless uncertainties that hindered bold and rapid iteration. Products often faced delays of many months—a detrimental setback in an industry moving at lightning speed.

A problem with too many heads

Compliance proved to be an issue that could never be resolved piecemeal. A company’s regulatory obligations hinge on countless variables, each managed by a different department that rarely communicates with the others.

Legal teams track regulations, while another division oversees their execution. Product teams make independent choices regarding features, and yet another group opens inquiries to verify compliance status. Policies, standards, and oversight belong entirely to separate departments—typically the very organizational silos that a compliance startup targets to secure a clear buyer and budget.

“Solving compliance” felt akin to fighting the Hydra: slice off a single head, and two more appear in its place. A minimum viable product simply does not work here; fixing just one part changes nothing. Addressing the challenge demands a maximum viable product right from day one.

Why the second time is different

Recent years have highlighted inspiring instances of seasoned founders returning to confront new hurdles. Stockholm serves as a prime example, where alumni from Spotify and Klarna have launched and supported numerous new ventures, leveraging their early credibility to tackle more ambitious problems.

During a second entrepreneurial venture, securing both capital and access becomes significantly easier. A successful initial exit opens doors to top-tier talent, strategic partners, and investors that were previously out of reach during our time at Tink. It represents a remarkable opportunity for which I am deeply grateful. Founders get to apply every lesson learned from past successes and failures, launching their new projects with a distinct tailwind as people actively seek to collaborate and invest.

Furthermore, having personal capital allows founders to fully fund the initial development independently, preventing investors from forcing them to downscale the concept before it has been tested.

Maximum viable product

Historically, experience and financial resources could only carry a project so far. A decade ago, creating something of this magnitude still would have required years of work from hundreds of individuals across diverse disciplines. Advanced language models have fundamentally altered that dynamic. Today, our team consists of 22 dedicated members and continues to expand, delivering results at a speed I could only have imagined when we originally built Tink.

Additionally, we feel our perspectives have been tempered by the challenges encountered over our first 15 years as entrepreneurs.

Understanding that setbacks are inevitable helps reinforce the realization that building a startup is not a solo sprint, but a collective team marathon. While none of this guarantees ultimate triumph, it provides an ideal foundation for standing firm and executing your most ambitious vision yet.

---

Daniel Kjellén is the CEO and co-founder of Freda, the Stockholm-based AI-native compliance company that came out of stealth in September 2026. He previously co-founded the open banking platform Tink in 2012 and led it as CEO through its growth to a multimarket operation with around 700 employees before its €1.8 billion acquisition by Visa in 2022.

Illustration: Dom Guzman

?Frequently Asked Questions

01What is a Maximum Viable Product (MVP vs. Maximum)?

Unlike a traditional Minimum Viable Product—which launches with the bare minimum features to test a narrow use case—a Maximum Viable Product is designed for complex, high-stakes industries like compliance where partial solutions fail to address deeply intertwined regulatory requirements from day one.

02How do language models impact early-stage startups?

Advanced language models allow smaller teams to build and ship products at a much faster pace, reducing the need for hundreds of employees during the initial development phases.

03What was Tink?

Tink was an open banking platform co-founded by Daniel Kjellén in 2012, which grew to roughly 700 employees before being acquired by Visa for €1.8 billion in 2022.