I think they went out of their way to make the whole thing as vague as possible, and hide the value proposition, possibly because they didn't really know it themselves, and tried to be "flexible" to pivot and cater to everyone.

The whole proposition was to:

* charge $500/onsite to the employers (that's often way below what it costs to bring an out-of-state candidate to Cali for an onsite — Triplebyte intentionally low-balled the cost for the travel arrangements of an onsite to waste everyone's time on pointless onsites), and,

* bring candidates for a whole week of onsites to a given physical location (you were limited and encouraged to have up to 5 onsites in SF Bay and up to 5 in NYC, e.g., you'd spend a whole week (5 nights) at each location if you were to get and accept enough offers for the onsites, where both you and the employer have to make a decision after a single 30 minute phone call).

They did this by booking really bad flights out of far-away airports (unless you push back); really bad hotels in the most shady areas (unless you push back); not covering the hotel on the final day at the location (decent SF Bay always cover both nights) and requiring red-eye flights; and not covering per-diem, even though it's the industry's standard practice to cover per-diem; and also not covering airport parking or mileage to the airport — all of these items are always covered by all other companies hiring directly.

Because no employed candidate could simply spend two weeks interviewing all over the place, they've obviously prayed on the unemployed people, by misrepresenting the opportunity, and doing a bait-and-switch at the final minute in regards to the travel arrangements, once everything else is already in place.

---

I think the biggest proposition and the selling point was for the startups to cheaply access out-of-state candidates for $500/onsite, and then offer a lower salary because it's been scientifically proven that salary expectations are lower for people moving to SF Bay Area from out-of-state (e.g., look at the study that Hired did a few years ago).

I was determined by Triplebyte to be in the top-3% of folk — I was accepted by Triplebyte after passing the 2h technical interview with one of their engineers; but my onsites weren't particularly aligned; and Triplebyte did several misrepresentations and dragged their feet throughout the whole process as well.

I would not recommend Triplebyte to anyone until they raise the price of an onsite to maybe 750 to 1k per onsite for the employers and cover travel in full for the candidates (including parking, mileage and per-diem). Low-balling the cost of the onsite results in employers giving these left and right without much thought; the candidates aren't even informed that standard travel costs won't be covered, in fact, Triplebyte does the opposite, and claims that it covers all travel expenses, which is a big lie.

---

However, do I think it's a good idea for Triplebyte to pivot to tackle LinkedIn? Yes, most definitely. Triplebyte introduced candidate certificates a while ago, but I don't think these were particularly marketable the way they've been implemented in the past; it's also not particularly clear how it'll work from the financial perspective, because it costs real money to do all those 2h interviews.

Is it a good idea to require an opt-out instead of an opt-in? Yeah, if you could not follow such a sleazy business practice and make yourself available to potential FTC oversight for 20 years, that'd be great. I won't be logging in to toggle any settings, because I'd rather not disqualify myself from the extra fun of being a part of the class!