The interview process involved a phone screen, a technical pair programming screen, and a multi-panel interview. This panel consisted of a "system design" challenge, blockchain pair programming, a problem-solving problem, and a behavioral interview.

There was a common theme among the panel interviewers where it seemed they didn't fully understand the questions themselves. For example, the system design problem was phrased as: "Create a system that issues a stable coin pegged 1:1 to USD for ETH and allows for borrowing against." I focused on how to stabilize the coin with ETH as a deposit for most of the interview, until the interviewer mentioned that the stable coin should redeem for less if the ETH price declines (so it shouldn't be a stable coin??). The problem then morphed into basically creating a borrowing protocol with 10 minutes left. I guess it's too much to expect software engineers to understand complex finance concepts.

The problem-solving pair programming involved finding the cheapest currency exchange path. After watching the interviewer struggle with clarifying questions, I mentioned a shortest path algorithm that would work and was advised that I "don't have to go that hard." So I did just that, and was told that the interviewer didn't think I considered the complexity (that my suggested algorithm was built for) of other scenarios.

Other than this, I experienced a canceled panel interview due to the interviewer being unprepared with a question. I also noticed huge disconnects in culture. One of my interviewers was the head of a product, and my last interviewer told me how he and his friends think that product sucks and use a competitor.

The behavioral interview was great, and the interviewer mentioned he hoped to work with me. Unfortunately, nobody else in this process was someone I'd want to work with.

How would you build a system which issues stablecoins pegged to USD and allows borrowing?