Despite the company's negative reviews, curiosity got the better of me. What followed was a four-week journey through one of the most impersonal and bureaucratic hiring processes I've encountered in my decade-plus career in tech. The process began unusually, with video-recorded questions replacing human interaction. Instead of a warm conversation, I found myself talking to a screen, trying to convey my passion and expertise to an algorithm. Little did I know this would set the tone for what was to come. My first human interaction was with the CPO, who appeared visibly exhausted and stressed. The irony? They asked the same questions I'd already answered in my video recordings. This redundancy would become a recurring theme throughout the process. Then came the most puzzling part: a battery of personality and IQ tests spanning over 150 questions. In my ten years of professional experience, I'd never encountered such an extensive psychometric evaluation for a technical role. It took over two hours to complete, reducing my years of experience and expertise to data points on a chart. Despite my growing reservations, I pressed on, driven by a mix of curiosity and determination. The CTO interview followed, bringing with it another round of familiar behavioral questions. The CTO, seemingly new to their role, appeared as stressed as the CPO. The pattern of repetitive questioning continued, suggesting a concerning lack of communication between the interviewers. The technical interview revealed even more red flags. The interviewers, who presented themselves as senior developers, showed their cards through surface-level questions and concerning responses about their development practices. Their day-to-day work seemed to revolve around firefighting and quick fixes, with little emphasis on innovation or code quality. The behavioral questions? You guessed it - the same ones from previous rounds. What truly set off alarm bells was the aftermath of the final interview. Without my consent or prior notification, I received a processed recording of the meeting, complete with a transcript and AI-generated metrics - including bizarre statistics about speaking time distributions. My attempts to delete this data were met with permission denials, raising serious GDPR concerns. The final verdict arrived: they had found a "better candidate." Yet, curiously, the position remains open to this day. This apparent dishonesty was the final piece of a puzzle that painted a clear picture: a company struggling with its identity and processes. Looking back, the signs were clear. What they advertised as a mid/senior role actually seemed to be a search for a lead developer to guide their team - evidenced by their persistent questions about leadership impact and people management. This misalignment explains their reliance on mid-level freelancers posing as senior developers. The entire experience raises crucial questions: What value is there in subjecting candidates to four rounds of identical behavioral questions? How do personality and IQ tests relate to senior technical capabilities? For a company that's remained in startup mode for a decade without generating profit, these practices suggest deeper organizational issues. What's more disturbing is the word from my professional network about the company's practices. Their pattern involves recruiting immigrants desperate for opportunities, requiring them to relocate from their home countries, then dismissing them once their immediate needs are met. The founders' immaturity manifests in how they rebrand their management inexperience as "efficient decision-making" - a thin veil for incompetence. The company's preference for hiring immigrants who might be in vulnerable positions is particularly troubling. These employees often leave quietly without raising complaints about unfair treatment, perpetuating a cycle of exploitation. This targeting of vulnerable workers explains why many of their negative reviews don't tell the full story - those most affected often can't afford to speak up. My advice to other professionals, especially those considering relocation for this role? Save your time and energy. This process offers nothing but frustration and disappointment. It's a stark reminder that sometimes, negative reviews tell an important story - one I wish I had heeded earlier. And for those who might be desperate for an opportunity - know that there are better companies out there who will value your skills and treat you with respect.