TLDR: My Experience with Decentralized Masters

• The experience: Applying for Director of Organic Growth at Decentralized Masters (DeFi education and crypto investment consultation company), requiring 7+ years of marketing experience.
• Interview process kept expanding: Originally told it would be 2 rounds (CMO → co-founders), but it became 3 interviews + lengthy assessments + a technical exam, with no co-founder meeting.
• AI was discussed as normal throughout: AI mentioned in interviews; the company mentioned using AI for graphics. No objections were raised.
• Technical exam time estimate was significantly off: Stated as “60-90 minutes” but actually took 7 hours. ChatGPT estimated 6-12 hours was realistic for the scope.
• I transparently disclosed AI use for fact-checking and research on their technical exam, while writing the actual content myself.
• Rejection reason: They wanted to assess work without the use of AI tools — a requirement never communicated beforehand.
• My core concern: By not stating AI restrictions upfront, Decentralized Masters may be inadvertently penalizing honesty while potentially rewarding candidates who used AI without disclosing it. Additionally, I would like to prevent other job candidates from feeling what I felt at the end of this process.
• No response when I raised these concerns directly after being rejected.
• My advice for job seekers: Get AI policies in writing, question unrealistic time estimates, track your total time investment, and trust your instincts when expectations keep shifting.

My Experience with Decentralized Masters

I recently interviewed for the role of Director of Organic Growth at Decentralized Masters. The experience left me feeling frustrated, upset, and confused. I discussed my experience in two different forums, and was told multiple times that their behavior was concerning.

That is part of what has inspired this article. That said, this is not an attempt to finger-point or attack the company. Instead, I’m simply sharing a firsthand, evidence-backed account of my experience for three reasons:

• To increase transparency and promote strong ethics in hiring for DeFi, online education, crypto, web3, and other industries.
• To ensure everyone can make the most informed decisions possible when it comes to whether or not to engage with Decentralized Masters and other companies.
• To encourage Decentralized Masters to revise their hiring process so it is clearer and more transparent. I would like other job applicants to avoid feeling the frustration and unfairness I have felt. And I think Decentralized Masters would benefit from this, as well.

To be clear, I cannot make any firm claims about the company’s intent. In fact, the lack of clarity on their intent is part of what has driven me to write this. I am simply stating what happened, when it happened, and what was communicated at each stage.

Decentralized Masters is welcome to email me with any verifiable, documented corrections. I am committed to keeping this as transparent and accurate as possible.

Decentralized Masters’ Job Role

The job I applied for was Director of Organic Growth at Decentralized Masters, a DeFi education company. According to the job description, I would be responsible for scaling Decentralized Masters’ reach and impact through organic channels — including SEO, YouTube, social media, email, community, and partnerships.

The role emphasized combining analytical rigor with creative innovation to design growth loops, optimize funnels, and ensure search results domination, social conversations, and the expansion of DeFi education spaces globally. It required 7+ years of experience in growth marketing with 3+ years in senior leadership. The posting listed proficiency with Google Analytics, Ahrefs, SEMrush, HubSpot, and social analytics platforms as preferred qualifications.

Compensation was described as competitive with a remote-first culture and globally distributed team.

Why I Was Interested

This role hit several marks for me: Multi-channel organic strategy. Leadership responsibilities. Heavy analytics focus. My background includes growing YouTube channels, managing SEO strategies, running content teams, and building communities. I had previous experience in the web3 space at Upptic, a games marketing company focused on web3 games. I’d also been Head of Content at Superpeer, an online education and learning platform. Plus, the salary range seemed promising.

And honestly? The interview process started off really well.

Decentralized Masters’ Interview Process

Application to Initial Outreach

On November 2, 2025, after submitting my application, I received the typical confirmation email from their Talent Manager thanking me for applying.

Shortly after, on November 5, I received notice that I was advancing to the next stage. I was asked to schedule a call, and did so without difficulty.

So far, no red flags. Everything was flowing smoothly.

Round 1 Interview: Decentralized Masters’ Talent Manager

In my first call with Decentralized Master’s Talent Manager, on November 11, 2025, we discussed the company’s growth from a small team to a 100+ team spread across dozens of countries. They explained their educational mastermind program for crypto investment and shared details on their tech stack.

I shared my background: 15 years in content and marketing, experience at Superpeer (online education, acquired by Skillshare), Upptic (web3 game marketing), and current fractional roles at Hype and Promotion Vault. I described my team structure philosophy — typically a graphic designer, video editor, writer, and coordinator working from a single source of truth.

Here’s where the first mention of AI came up. The Talent Manger had asked about how I might organize a content team to build authority in Decentralized Masters’ niche. My response?

“I think every team should have at least one graphic designer, one video editor, one writer, and then ideally someone who’s kind of coordinating all of them to make sure that things are running smoothly, that we’re actually hitting The KPIs.

“The writer is, you know, focused on the SEO and the blogs. The the graphic designer is helping both with video thumbnails and the SEO, or the the blog thumbnails, and also, you know, graphics within that.

“I know a lot of people use AI for that nowadays, and that can work sometimes. But honestly, for for picture and image generation, I find that a an actual graphic artist is preferred still.”

We talked more about successes, failures, and strategies. The Talent Manager closed by explaining the next steps. She said I would meet with Decentralized Masters’ CMO next (clear indication I was already moving on!). If that went well, there would be a final round with the two co-founders.

From my perspective, this set the expectation of a very routine, multi-interview hiring process. That would change over the course of the process.

Admittedly, I ignored the changes when they were happening, as it was fairly subtle. It’s only in hindsight that this became a potential red flag.

Round 2 Interview: Decentralized Master’s CMO

My call with Decentralized Masters’ CMO on November 13, 2025, went deeper.

They explained the company’s operational realities and framed the major challenge companies in the space face: The fact that crypto is a newer industry means it comes with the scams that all emerging markets face — making it difficult to establish trust. They noted that their content has been focused on building that trust and proving that they are a legitimate company.

Deeper into the call, I discussed my content creation approach, including my use of AI:

“At Upptic, I created a podcast, and we used that podcast to build out a bunch of shorts from that content. But in addition to that, we were also using AI. I would feed the transcript into ChatGPT, and it was able to create — fairly quickly — long form in-depth, SEO-ranking articles.”

Decentralized Master’s CMO did not push back on this. They did not suggest it was problematic. Instead, we simply moved on to the next question.

From my perspective, this established the expectation that AI is accepted as a practical, normal tool in content workflows.

Round 3 Interview: Decentralized Masters Head of Partnerships

Wait. Wasn’t the next step supposed to be meeting the co-founders? The process had already changed (though, at the time, I didn’t really question it).

Instead of Decentralized Masters’ co-founders, I met with the company’s Head of Partnerships on November 17, 2025.

The Head of Partnerships explained why Decentralized Masters was looking for a Director of Organic Growth in the first place. They noted that the company has simply evolved and grown to the point where they could no longer split their personal responsibilities between organic growth, partnerships, and affiliate management. The organic side needed its own dedicated owner.

AI came up again — this time from their side. The Head of Partnerships described the company’s current approach to graphics when I asked about their team structure. They noted that, at the moment, they had no dedicated graphic artist. However, with the advent of AI, the company had been using it, at least partially, for image generation.

They also mentioned their focus on the SEO and the AI overview side of things — though, to be clear, this was in reference to GEO/AIO. Still, it was clear that AI wasn’t just tolerated — it was explicitly part of their organic growth strategy and operations.

From my perspective, this reinforced the expectation that AI is a normal, accepted tool in this company’s operations and strategies.

Decentralized Masters’ Skill Assessments

After the Head of Partnerships interview, The Talent Manager sent an email on November 18, 2025, saying that the Head of Partnerships enjoyed chatting with me. They detailed that the next steps would be a personality + skills assessment and, then, a technical exercise.

We were now getting very far from what was laid out in the Talent Manager’s initial call. Still, I had been enjoying the process, loving the interviews, and am a sucker for online personality quizzes.

That said, these were not small assessments. Each set was timed — and, altogether, could take up to 3.5 hours. In total, I spent approximately 2 hours and 5 minutes completing them. The assessments covered a large, diverse range of topics and skills.

My results were strong:

• Cultural Fit: Accountability 100%, Integrity 100%, Customer Focus 100%, Work Ethic 100%, Leadership Potential 100%
• DISC: Decisiveness 81%, Impact 94%, Support 94%, Certainty 84%,
• Cognitive Flexibility: 100% (18/18 correct)
• Attention to Detail: 80%
• Numerical Reasoning: 72%

These assessments showed I was an exceptional fit for Decentralized Masters’ Director of Organic Growth role. But, perhaps more importantly, they represented yet another step in what was becoming a much longer process than initially described.

Decentralized Masters’ Technical Exercise

After reviewing the skills and personality assessment, the Talent Manager was true to their word and sent over the aforementioned technical exercise on December 1, 2025. It was billed as a 60-90 minute technical exam.

The scope? A multi-platform 30-day content calendar. Six fully written example posts. A 90-day organic growth strategy. Detailed funnel improvement recommendations. KPIs for seven different channels with explanations. Leadership and collaboration approach. Process building methodology. Compensation requirements.

Anyone who has built a content calendar should see that something wasn’t adding up. This should have set off alarm bells for me, but, admittedly, I mostly read the top-page instructions and was off to the races. I was excited to flex my skills and didn’t really stop to think about what was actually being asked of me or thoroughly examine the entire exam before starting.

This is, admittedly, a huge failure on my part, and one I should really know better than to do by now. I mean, how many of us had the clever teachers in K-12 school who would give a test with instructions to “read everything first,” followed by a bunch of wacky tasks or difficult questions — only for the last instruction to be “ignore everything above, turn this paper over, sit quietly, and enjoy the show.” My English and History teachers would be so disappointed in me right now.

So, Is AI Allowed on Decentralized Masters’ Technical Exam?

At no point during the exam did the words “Do not use AI” or any variation of that appear (nor was it in the Talent Manager’s email which contained the exam). The closest the exam came to this was on page 4, where I was instructed to write the actual content for the example posts — which I did. But nowhere did it say AI tools were prohibited for research, fact-checking, or any other purpose.

From my perspective, especially when combined with everything previous in the hiring process, this set an expectation that AI was an acceptable tool to use on the technical exam.

After all, Decentralized Masters was trying to evaluate my effectiveness as a Director of Organic Growth, weren’t they? Surely using all the latest tools to streamline the process, while making sure everything is as accurate and effective as possible, was an expected part of such an evaluation.

My Completed Technical Exam: What I Delivered to Decentralized Masters

I started the exam expecting to finish in about 90 minutes. Three hours in, I was only halfway through. Something was wrong. Either I was doing something incorrectly, or the time estimate was wildly inaccurate.

I ran the exam through ChatGPT to sanity-check the expected time commitment. Its assessment: 6-12 hours was a more realistic range for the scope requested.

I communicated this to the Talent Manager immediately, on the same day (December 1). I also provided a link to ChatGPT’s assessment, just so they could fact-check everything themselves, if they wanted.

The Talent Manager’s response was empathetic, thanking me for the update, noting that they would share my feedback with the CMO, and acknowledging that they could also see it taking much longer than estimated.

My Approach to the Exam? Meticulous Transparency

Ultimately, I spent 7 hours on the exam over the course of two days.

Throughout my submission, I explicitly noted where I used AI and tried to be as transparent as possible so that I could be accurately assessed. I used AI primarily as a fact-checker for crypto market trends I wasn’t current on, finding optimal posting times for specific audiences, and ensuring everything I put in the content calendar was accurate and likely to be effective.

The actual strategic thinking — the funnel recommendations, the 90-day plan, the leadership approach — that was all me. The example posts? I wrote those myself. (Though I did fact-check all of them to ensure accuracy, as much as possible.)

The work demonstrated senior-level thinking. My funnel recommendations included segmented lead magnets, behavior-based email retargeting, community loops, and tiered webinar strategies. My 90-day strategy prioritized low-hanging fruit first, then mid-tier changes, then systemic improvements.

I also included metrics from my recent work at Promotion Vault to show how similar strategies were already seeing results: +42% conversions, +31% organic clicks, +25 average Google rank positions (from #40 to #15).

Post-Submission Follow-Up

I finished the exam and submitted it on December 2, 2025. The Talent Manager quickly thanked me and noted they were sending it to the CMO and would get back to me ASAP. After a week of not hearing anything — unusual given how responsive they’d been throughout the process — I checked in on December 9.

Decentralized Masters’ Rejection Email

Then, on December 10, 2025, came the response that ultimately prompted this article. The Talent Manager thanked me for my time and effort, but noted that Decentralized Masters had ultimately decided not to move forward with my application.

The reason?

“For the final exercise, we were specifically looking to assess your own work without the use of AI tools, so we weren’t able to properly evaluate your abilities for this role.”

At no point had AI restrictions been mentioned in the instructions, emails, or any of the three interviews. In fact, on the contrary: AI had been discussed openly as a normal part of work — both by me and by them.

My Attempt to Clarify Intent and the Expectation Mismatch

I followed up twice. My first reply focused on my immediate feelings of unfairness — and concerns that other candidates could be left feeling the same way without revisions to their hiring process.

My second response provided additional context and feedback:

1. AI was discussed on the calls with both the CMO and Head of Partnerships, and it sounds like AI is part of Decentralized Masters’ toolset — not just for the role I was applying for, but with graphic artists as well.
2. AI is a regular part of a marketer’s toolset these days. It has been required or expected at pretty much every job I’ve looked at for the last couple of years.
3. The only section that explicitly mentioned writing actual content (implying not to use AI) was the social posts section — which I did write on my own.

Ultimately, I pointed out that I was concerned Decentralized Masters might be inadvertently filtering for candidates who aren’t transparent or can’t use the latest marketing tools effectively — warning them that this could lead to poorer outcomes in their hiring process.

As of today, December 14, 2025, I have received no response.

Decentralized Masters’ Expectation Drift

Throughout this process, expectations shifted — sometimes subtly, sometimes significantly. Here’s the TLDR ledger.

Subtle Changes in Interview Process and Scope

Originally outlined process: An initial interview with Decentralized Masters’ CMO; then, if I moved on, a final round interview with Decentralized Masters Co-Founders.

Actual process: Interview with CMO → Interview with Head of Partnerships → 3.5-hour personality and skills assessment (completed in 2 hours) → “60-90 minute” technical exam (which took 7 hours). No co-founder interview materialized.

Why this matters: The goalposts kept moving. Each additional step was reasonable in isolation, but the cumulative effect was a process far longer and more demanding than initially described.

Tooling Expectations: AI Discussed as Normal vs. AI Treated as Disqualifying

How expectations were set (in my mind): AI in workflow was openly discussed during interviews. I mentioned using ChatGPT for long-form content. Decentralized Masters’ CMO didn’t object. Their Head of Partnerships described the company using AI for graphics after their graphic designer didn’t work out; while they focused on “the AI overview side of things.”

Late-stage reframing: My rejection email stated that they were specifically looking to assess my work without the use of AI tools. This requirement appeared only at the rejection stage — never before.

Documentation: I transparently noted every instance of AI use in my exam. The closest the instructions came to restricting AI was when told, on Page 4 of the exam, to “write the actual content” for social posts — which I did.

Why this matters: I was penalized for using AI, despite the fact that the Decentralized Masters team had implicitly normalized this as a tool they used. I was not informed of any AI restrictions until after the fact. If this process is repeated elsewhere, in my view, it could potentially lead to a situation where a candidate could pass their exam using AI, if they ultimately chose not to disclose that fact.

Time/Effort Expectations: “60-90 Minutes” vs. Real-World Scope

In regard to the technical exam, specifically:

Stated estimate: “Estimated Time: 60–90 minutes.”

Actual time invested: 7 hours.

External validation: ChatGPT’s assessment of the scope suggested 6-12 hours was realistic. A commenter in one of the forums I discussed this in responded: “Under no circumstances is building a social media calendar a ’60-90 minute project.'”

Why this matters: A 7x time discrepancy isn’t a rounding error. It either reflects poor understanding of the work involved or misalignment in expectations.

(Though to be fair here, I also should have paid closer attention to what was being asked in the technical exam from the start, instead of diving in without fully reviewing and considering the mismatch between the stated time and stated goals. This is definitely a failure on my part, as well. And one I don’t plan to repeat.)

Evaluation Target: Director-Level Strategy vs. Solo Production Purity Test

How expectations were set (in my mind): The job role was clearly seeking a Director of Organic Growth — not a content writer who happens to manage people. Everything up to the technical exam reflected this. The job description, interviews, and personality + skills assessments clearly focused on leadership, systems, experimentation, dashboards, cross-functional collaboration, and strategy development.

Late-stage reframing: They said, post-exam, that they wanted to assess my own work without the use of AI tools. This reframed the assessment as a production purity test rather than a strategic evaluation. And it was only done after the exam was turned in.

Why this matters: Directors don’t work in a vacuum. They use tools. They leverage systems. And they make smart decisions about when to delegate, automate, or enhance. Testing whether someone can write posts without AI tells you nothing about whether they can scale organic growth.

Community Discussion: Decentralized Masters and the Job Market

When I shared my experience on LinkedIn and Facebook, I received a lot of feedback. Here are the main concerns people raised:

Concerns about uncompensated work

Several people felt the take-home exercise could potentially function like uncompensated spec work, even if unintentionally.

I question this. To me, it doesn’t sound sensible, sustainable, or scalable. In Decentralized Masters’ case, specifically, the video interviews take lots of time, and their skill assessments are deep and detailed (likely with a B2B service fee attached). Running three rounds of interviews for free content seems like an absurdly inefficient content-generation strategy. Second, looking into them on the consumer side, they seem pretty ethical, or at least legitimate. They have real testimonials, real community, real content, and a CEO with verifiable credentials.

A broader pattern of hiring-process dysfunction

Some commenters framed what happened as part of a common issue: companies changing processes midstream, lacking a clear plan, or running hiring steps that don’t align with the role — which can produce inconsistent outcomes for candidates. Multiple people mentioned that hiring and the job market as a whole is fundamentally broken.

I certainly echo the idea that the job market and companies’ hiring processes are fundamentally broken. I have never seen so many people out of work, struggling to get by, and struggling to be seen. Speaking personally, I have never spent more than a few weeks unemployed or underemployed in my entire career — but this year I have struggled for months to find and keep full-time work.

The time-estimate mismatch as a red flag.

Multiple people flagged the gap between the stated “60–90 minutes” on the exam and the actual effort required as a signal of misalignment — either in expectations, internal coordination, or understanding the work involved. They suggested that if that kind of mismatch shows up in the hiring process, it likely impacts day-to-day operations, as well.

It is impossible to say whether this is true, but I can say that, even if Decentralized Masters turned around and offered me the job with my full requested benefits and pay package, I would probably turn it down at this point, because of concerns about this.

A quick note on bias and interpretation

To be clear, these were interpretations other people had of my documented experience, based on their own experiences or insights. It’s impossible to say with certainty whether any or all of these are applicable to Decentralized Masters. But they are all things to keep in mind for anyone applying for jobs in the current job market.

Actionable Advice for Job Candidates Considering Decentralized Masters

If you’re considering applying to Decentralized Masters — or any company, really — here’s what I’d recommend:

Questions to Ask Before Any Take-Home Assessment, Exercise, or Exam

• “Is AI allowed? If yes, how should it be disclosed?” Get this in writing.
• “What’s the real expected time range, and what’s in scope versus out of scope?” If they say 60-90 minutes for a content calendar, multi-platform strategy, and six written posts, push back.
• “How will this be evaluated — strategy, execution, judgment, or speed?” Understanding the rubric matters.
• “Will I receive feedback regardless of outcome?” You should get something for your time investment.

Boundaries Job Candidates Should Set

• If the interview process changes from what was originally outlined, pump the brakes — even if the changes seem minor. One extra round becomes two. Suddenly you’re 10+ hours in.
• Instead of a 7-hour technical exam, consider offering reference samples from past work, and create a smaller proof-of-concept instead of fully producing everything they request. Real directors don’t do full production work for free.
• Track your total time investment. When it exceeds what’s reasonable for the role’s compensation and position, walk away.
• If they ask you to complete any in-depth exams or exercises before you’ve even had a chance to cross-examine them in a phone interview, request to do so. If they decline, walk away. This is a clear sign they are attempting to extract free labor from you. (To Decentralized Masters credit, they did not do this — which I think weakens any arguments that they were attempting to do so.)

Company Takeaways From My Experience with Decentralized Masters

In addition to takeaways for job candidates, there are definite takeaways in my experience with Decentralized Masters for companies, recruiters, and hiring managers:

• Know your hiring process from start to end and apply it continuously and consistently throughout a job candidate’s journey.
• Understand what expectations you are explicitly and implicitly setting through your interviews, discussions, and communications.
• Be extremely clear about any rules for exams and exercises. Do not punish candidates for rules you don’t mention until after the fact.

Evaluating Decentralized Masters Through a Customer and Prospect Lens

As I said at the top of this article, I cannot know Decentralized Masters’ internal intent. I don’t know if their behavior is manipulative, careless, poorly coordinated, or something else.

However, the fact that Decentralized Masters’ hiring process contained shifting expectations, unclear communication, and late-stage evaluation changes does raise concerns. And it is entirely possible that prospective DeFi education or crypto investment customers may stumble upon this while researching the legitimacy of Decentralized Masters.

Because of this, I want to be clear:

• What can be realistically inferred: Decentralized Masters changed expectations throughout their hiring process without clearly communicating those changes. Their technical exam time estimate was off by approximately 7x. They penalized a candidate for transparent AI use without having established AI restrictions. As of today, December 14, 2025, they have not responded to my email highlighting these concerns (despite having been highly communicative, up to this point).
• What cannot be conclusively stated: Whether this was intentional. Whether it reflects broader company practices. Whether it affects their customer relationships. Whether they’ve since changed their processes.
• Additional context to consider: When I was researching Decentralized Masters at various points (both when deciding whether to apply at the company, and when deciding whether or not to continue the interview process at early stages), nothing jumped out as a red flag. As far as I can tell, Decentralized Masters is a legitimate company that provides relevant DeFi education insights and actionable portfolio advice for crypto investors.

Always Be Vigilant – Whether Job Hunter, Consumer, Hiring Manager

I have gone to great lengths to ensure everything in this is evidence-backed. If Decentralized Masters wants to clarify or correct anything in this article, I welcome an email and will update things accordingly (assuming it, too, is evidence-backed). Transparency should definitely go both ways.

My goal here has been simple: Whether with Decentralized Masters or other companies, I want to encourage transparency and consistency in hiring, make sure no job candidates go through the experience I had, and ensure everyone has as much information as possible to make the most informed decisions possible.

You have the timeline, quotes, and documentation from my experience. You can make your own assessment. If you’re going through the interview process right now with Decentralized Masters or another company and notice a shift in expectations: Ask clarifying questions before investing more time. Get important details in writing. And if something feels off, trust your instincts. Your time and expertise have value. Protect them.

FAQ: Decentralized Masters Interview Experience

What is Decentralized Masters?

Decentralized Masters is a DeFi education company that also provides mastermind members with actionable insights on crypto investment portfolios.

What role were you applying for at Decentralized Masters?

Director of Organic Growth. The position involved scaling reach through SEO, YouTube, social media, email, community, and partnerships.

What was the original interview process supposed to be?

Two rounds (not including initial recruiter interview): an interview with the CMO, followed by a final round with the co-founders.

What did the process actually involve?

Two interviews (not including initial recruiter interview): CMO, Head of Partnerships; a 3.5-hour personality/skills assessment; and a technical exam that took 7 hours despite being estimated at 60-90 minutes.

Why were you rejected?

The company stated they wanted to assess work without the use of AI tools — but this requirement was never communicated before or during the exam.

Did you hide your AI use?

No. I explicitly disclosed every instance of AI use throughout the exam for transparency.

Was AI ever discussed during the interview process?

Yes. I mentioned using ChatGPT for content in interviews, and company representatives discussed using AI for graphics. No objections were raised at any point.

Did the exam instructions prohibit AI?

No. The closest instruction was to write the actual content for social posts, which I did. No explicit AI restrictions appeared anywhere.

How did you use AI on the exam?

Primarily for fact-checking crypto market trends, finding optimal posting times, and verifying accuracy. Strategic thinking, recommendations, and written posts were my own work.

Why is the time estimate discrepancy significant?

A 7x difference (90 minutes stated vs. 7 hours actual) suggests either poor understanding of the work involved or misaligned expectations.

Did Decentralized Masters respond to your concerns?

As of today, December 14, 2025? No. Despite being highly communicative throughout the process, they did not reply after I raised these issues in two follow-up emails.

Are you accusing Decentralized Masters of scamming? Are they a fake company?

No. In fact, practically everything I could find on them when considering applying for their job indicates they’re a real company doing the things they say they do.

So Decentralized Masters is a legitimate company then?

Yes. Even though my experience with them was extremely upsetting at the end and feels deeply unfair to me, as far as I can tell, Decentralized Masters is a legitimate company that offers actionable defi education and insights for crypto investment.

What do you recommend for job seekers who are currently in the job market?

• Track total time invested
• Ask if AI is allowed and get it in writing
• Question unrealistic time estimates before starting
• Push back when interview processes keep expanding
• Make sure you understand how work will be evaluated
• Consider offering past work samples vs. extensive free production

What do you suggest Decentralized Masters and other companies do on their end to avoid situations like this?

• Know your hiring process from start to end and apply it continuously and consistently throughout a job candidate’s journey.
• Understand what expectations you are explicitly and implicitly setting through your interviews, discussions, and communications.
• Be extremely clear about any rules for exams and exercises. Do not punish candidates for rules you don’t mention until after the fact.

Would you accept the job if offered now?

Probably not. Even if they offered me the full compensation package I requested, this experience has damaged my personal trust with Decentralized Masters to the point I would be questioning everything — which is a poor basis for any healthy relationship. But, on the bright side, I did create an awesome 90-day organic growth launch plan for Decentralized Masters, which I welcome others to learn from!

I’m looking for an organic growth expert. Where can I learn more about you and book a call?

Just head to my marketing and career page! Or…