|
|
|
|
|
by ontoillogical
2628 days ago
|
|
> For me, for example, the fact that those positions can be matched up to me on TripleByte would literally make me reject those jobs. That seems shortsighted. If I was running a startup again and looking to grow my team after exhausting my personal network, triplebyte would be a good value proposition: reduce the time it takes me to hire by pre screening candidates and presenting me with a curated set of people to interview. So it follows that if I wanted to join a startup I’d consider triplebyte for the same reason —- I can see busy ceos of small companies using it. You seem to be focused on compensation not finding interesting offers though. To that I’d say two things: 1) If you want to purely optimize for compensation, work at FAANG. I don’t think they source via triplebyte so the point is moot. 2) In my experience, offer size is not related to where the candidate was sourced. |
|
How does this follow? Obviously the buyer (busy CEOs of start-ups looking to pay below market) wants a commodity platform to buy.
That does not mean the seller (job candidates) wants to sell on that platform, especially if the platform cheapens their product (such as reducing developers to a commodity interview process that fails to capture their value additive skills).