Pros
Fast-paced environment with opportunities for ownership Exposure to early-stage scaling challenges
Cons
I worked at the company for over a year and was part of a layoff that impacted roughly half of the organization. While the stated reason was cost optimization, the decisions did not reflect performance, impact, or business criticality in any consistent way. Multiple strong contributors were let go, while others with noticeably lower technical output remained in similar roles. There is a clear disconnect between technical merit and influence. In practice, individuals closer to decision-makers were favored over more capable contributors. This is compounded by uneven technical leadership—there are individuals in senior or “architect” or "Principal" roles who are not meaningfully contributing to design or execution, which further lowers the overall engineering bar. In several cases, decision-making authority sits with individuals who are not deeply involved in the technical details, leading to choices that do not align with engineering realities. Over time, this creates friction for capable engineers and impacts delivery quality. Communication around the layoffs lacked transparency, particularly around criteria and long-term direction. The way these decisions were executed suggests a stronger emphasis on short-term financial optics than on building a sustainable product or engineering organization. Merit is not applied consistently in hiring, retention, or layoffs Leadership effectiveness is uneven across teams Engineering standards are not consistently enforced Organizational direction appears reactive rather than deliberate