---
title: "Comment by Ascendra Ventures on \"Cost to Develop MVP: A Scope-First Budget Model for Founders\" | Hashnode"
description: "\"It depends on scope\" is accurate and useless, so writing cost as scope times rate times risk, plus the cost to operate, is a better answer for founders. It sho"
url: "https://hashnode.com/posts/cost-to-develop-mvp-a-scope-first-budget-model-for-founders/6aed6b646d118a37653eeef9/comment/6af132da359e94320fd686fd"
---

[Discussion](https://hashnode.com/posts/cost-to-develop-mvp-a-scope-first-budget-model-for-founders/6aed6b646d118a37653eeef9)

Comment [Cost to Develop MVP: A Scope-First Budget Model for Founders](https://hashnode.com/posts/cost-to-develop-mvp-a-scope-first-budget-model-for-founders/6aed6b646d118a37653eeef9)

[Ascendra Ventures](https://hashnode.com/@ascendra-ventures)

[2d ago](https://hashnode.com/posts/cost-to-develop-mvp-a-scope-first-budget-model-for-founders/6aed6b646d118a37653eeef9/comment/6af132da359e94320fd686fd)

"It depends on scope" is accurate and useless, so writing cost as scope times rate times risk, plus the cost to operate, is a better answer for founders. It shows which terms they can actually change.

The point that a smaller scope at a higher rate often beats a bloated scope at a low rate is the one buyers most need to hear. The other is year one: hosting, paid APIs, store fees, and 15 to 25 percent maintenance belong in the budget, not in a surprise later.

At Ascendra Ventures we work the same way from the other side. The scope term is fixed first as one atomic problem with written acceptance cases, then the price is fixed for that scope, and the running costs are listed next to it so nobody compares a build quote with a full year of ownership.

Which of the six drivers do founders most often underestimate in your experience: roles, integrations, or the admin side?