Crusoe reviews

Competency at the top is lacking; senior leadership does not appear to understand the following: 1. The technology they are selling: on the cloud side, wildly unrealistic performance and reliability SLAs meet operational missteps and inefficiencies, resulting in customer pain, revenue reversals, lost business. On the datacenter side, how can someone in the datacenter building business not know what a single-line diagram is?...or allow a 3rd party contractor to mismanage a build project so poorly you lose 2/3 of it? 2. How their GTM messaging is viewed by the customer: "vertical integration" is a means to an end that promises greater efficiency; if you can't actually deliver that greater efficiency in the form of lower prices and faster delivery to customers, it's a pretty weak marketing message. Moving up the value chain from just selling GPU time to providing services like managed inference might work for a portion of the market, but there are still a lot of customers who just want the GPU time, and other neoclouds are happy to provide that competitively -- why is this such a struggle for Crusoe? 3. How to get the most from employees: ham-handed maneuvers like 5-day RTO and untenable 24hr on-call rotations are causing attrition in some of the most critical roles. As one engineer put it "we are being treated like bonded labor"...which many tolerate on the promise that their equity will make the personal sacrifice worthwhile. Is this the discipline of the 9-9-6 work ethic that is a competitive necessity in the present market?...or is it possible that the most valuable resource this company has (i.e. the intelligence and experience of its workforce) is being squandered due to misconceptions from senior leadership about what efficient use of the human component of the business looks like? Is the engineer who has slept 2 of the last 48 hours really bringing their best self to work? You just got $1.3B in series-E funding...maybe use a bit of that to build sustainable 24x7 ops. If you constantly light fires under people, don’t be surprised when they burn out.

- There’s a lot of internal dysfunction, which makes it hard to develop skills or grow in a role. The company tends to prioritize moving quickly over building things thoughtfully or sustainably, and mistakes often repeat as a result. - Management quality varies widely, and there doesn’t seem to be much accountability when people are treated poorly. - The shift from three days in the office to five felt like a bait and switch. The allowance offered in place of the original benefit is only about 30% of what it used to be and requires tedious tracking and approval to use. - Despite receiving awards for diversity and inclusion, there isn’t much evidence of those values being reflected in everyday decisions or leadership behavior.