The MVP Naming Trap

I think it depends on the characteristics of the service and what the name is anchored to.
If the underlying problem is clear but the name was built around the feature itself, then yes. If you later pivot your solution approach, the name probably is wrong, and rebranding outright is the cleaner move.

But if the underlying problem stays the same and the name was built around the problem framing or the value (rather than the mechanism), changing the solution approach within that scope doesn't really conflict with the name. And if the pivot also changes the underlying problem itself, then rebranding makes sense.

For my own product, the name TRIM came from a concept rather than a specific feature. The underlying observation is that people today are overwhelmed by choice overload and decision fatigue, and the verb "trim" captures the idea of cutting away the noise of endless decisions and options. So unless that underlying premise itself turns out to be wrong, I don't think a reasonable pivot would force a major rename.

That said, there's an honest tension I'm sitting with. When I narrowed the niche to solopreneurs, the positioning shifted slightly. It became less about "trim away options" and more about "be the team that helps solo decision-makers close decisions quickly." Which means in this early niche-specific stage, the name TRIM might not feel immediately intuitive as a decision-closure tool for solopreneurs. That's a real concern I'm working through.

I expect this becomes a non-issue once the target audience broadens beyond the initial niche.

This is exactly the trap most MVPs fall into. A name should be specific enough to give the product a clear first impression, but not so specific that it locks the company to the first feature.

I’d separate three layers: the MVP can have a narrow feature promise, the landing page can explain the current use case, but the company name should leave room for the broader category you may grow into. Otherwise the moment you pivot from “one feature” to “system,” the name starts fighting the product.

The naming layer matters more than founders admit because it becomes the first positioning container. If the name sounds like a feature, users frame it like a feature. If the name sounds like a product company, it gives the product more room to expand.

That’s why I’d avoid exact-feature names unless the feature itself is the long-term category. For something that may become a broader SaaS, AI, or workflow product, a cleaner expandable .com like Beryxa.com would age better than a name tied too tightly to the MVP.