The journey began with two promising screens from recruiters, followed by a pleasant chat with the hiring manager. This led to a series of five additional interviews with various team members, which, while not particularly challenging, provided ample opportunity to delve into discussions about Robinhood. Interestingly, in half of these interviews, there was a recurrent theme of humble boasting about their salaries at Robinhood, which, considering I was being asked to accept a slight pay cut for the role they shifted me to, felt somewhat amusing. Despite assurances that they would ensure I wouldn't be financially disadvantaged by the title change, it became evident during the process that there was a discrepancy between promises and actions. Following the last interview, the recruiter emphasized the swift pace of their decision-making process, yet I found myself in a state of limbo for nearly a month before hearing anything. When they finally did reach out, it was to inform me that although they believed I was a good fit for Robinhood overall, they didn't see me in the particular role. Seeking constructive feedback, I inquired about their decision, only to be promised a response the following day, which never materialized. Throughout the interview process, several red flags emerged: a general dissatisfaction among employees, who cited chaos and shifting priorities as prevalent issues, with many admitting to staying solely for financial reasons. Additionally, there was widespread discontent regarding the reversal of the return-to-office policy. While the company offered decent benefits, the lackluster PTO policy and questionable assurances from the recruiter regarding time off and office attendance raised concerns. Furthermore, the company's overall reputation, marred by fines, hacks, and lawsuits due to incompetence and negligence in customer protection, added to the uncertainty surrounding the opportunity.