Hybrid | North America | IC-Only
This role is for engineers who have owned real systems end-to-end — built them, scaled them, fixed them when they broke, and lived with the consequences.
If you need:
perfect specs
heavy process
a management path
or a soft landing t
his is not the role.Youll own mission-critical product and payments-adjacent systems that move real money and sit directly on customer trust.
This is a small, senior engineering org where:
Ownership is obvious
decisions stick
shortcuts get paid back with interest
Leading ambiguous, high-stakes initiatives from design production iteration
Building and owning full-stack product surfaces (frontend + backend)
Designing APIs and services tied to real financial workflows
Making hard tradeoffs between speed, correctness, and scale
Working directly with product, growth, and customer stakeholders
Mentoring by example — no org charts, no theatre
Leaving systems materially better than you found them
You should clearly recognize yourself here:
6–15 years of professional engineering experience
Proven Staff-level ownership of real systems (not just influence)
Strong full-stack capability
Hands-on React or Ruby on Rails experience (at least one)
Background in B2B SaaS, fintech, marketplace, or payments-adjacent products
Experience shipping and operating production software used by real customers
Comfort operating without perfect information
Early or growth-stage startup experience
Built something, lived with it, improved it
Product-minded engineers who care about outcomes, not abstractions
Experience working close to customers, partners, or revenue
Engineering managers looking for an IC reset
Backend-only or infra-only profiles
Fully remote-only candidates
Engineers whose recent work is exclusively large-company, low-ownership work
Heavy Java-only backgrounds
React
Ruby on Rails
PostgreSQL
Proven tools. No résumé-driven architecture.
Base Salary: $225k–$300k USD (location-adjusted)
Equity:$200k–$400k in meaningful ownership
This is not a refresh equity.
This is early, material ownership tied directly to the systems you build and scale.
If you want upside without accountability, this isnt it.
Hybrid required
Major U.S. & Canadian tech hubs
~3 days/week in the office on average
Remote-only candidates should not apply
Recruiter screen
Live technical pairing (practical, not LeetCode)
System design
Technical depth discussion (projects you personally led)
Final behavioural interview with engineering leadership
Include one project you personally led end-to-end:
What you built
What broke
What you fixed
What youd do differently now
This role is for engineers who want:
real ownership
real consequences
real upside
If this excites you, you're probably a good fit.
If it doesn't, that's the filter doing its job.
Reject immediately if ANY of the following are true:
Candidate is seeking or hinting at engineering management responsibilities
Candidate frames this as a “step down from EM” or “IC for now”
Candidate is remote-only or resistant to hybrid work
Candidate is backend-only, infra-only, or platform-only
Cannot clearly articulate projects they personally led end-to-end
Has never owned a system through launch, failure, and iteration
Describes impact only in team terms (“we built…”) with no individual accountability
Experience is mostly execution against tickets, not ownership
Recent experience is exclusively big tech (Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.) with low ownership
Has not worked in an early or growth-stage environment
Career path optimized for brand names over responsibility
No meaningful hands-on experience with React or Ruby on Rails
Heavy Java-only background with limited modern product stack exposure
Cannot explain architectural tradeoffs they personally made
Struggles to explain why something was built, not just how
Shows little interest in customers, users, or business impact
Avoids ambiguity; expects polished specs and guardrails
Optimizes for “clean abstractions” over shipping usable systems
Overuses buzzwords, frameworks, or vague leadership language
Cannot clearly describe a technical decision they regret
Defensive when discussing failures or tradeoffs
Can clearly walk through one project they owned start finish
Has built something, watched it break, and fixed it
Comfortable discussing tradeoffs, mistakes, and second-order effects
Has worked close to product, customers, or revenue
Motivated by ownership and impact, not title progression
If a recruiter cannot answer this in two sentences:
“What system did this candidate personally own, and what broke?”
Do not submit.
Company name: A to B