I applied online. I interviewed at Koinly (Dublin, Dublin) in Jun 2025
Interview
The process began with a standard HR interview, which was straightforward. After that, I was asked to complete a coding test. While the technical implementation itself wasn’t particularly difficult, the real challenge was understanding the financial context behind it — something that wasn’t mentioned in the job description.
The task involved mapping data from four CSV files containing bank and trade transactions. As noted in the instructions, just understanding the structure of the data could take around four hours, and coding the solution would require additional time. In the end, I spent over 10 hours on it.
In my view, the test seemed to evaluate financial domain knowledge more than software development skills, which felt misaligned with the role. It ended up being a significant time investment, and I believe coding challenges should strike a better balance between relevance and fairness — especially when domain expertise hasn’t been flagged as a requirement.
Interview questions [1]
Question 1
mapping data from four CSV files containing bank and trade transactions.
After 1st interview they ghost you without any feedback which is not professional that meant you never can count or their credibility.. Hope they will change after my review 🤷♀️
I applied online. I interviewed at Koinly in Jul 2025
Interview
Demanding and time-consuming hiring process with limited feedback
What was good:
1. The initial conversation with the recruiter was positive and professional.
2. The technical task was relevant to the role and based on their actual codebase.
3. I appreciated the opportunity to improve the solution after submission.
What to be aware of:
1. Unrealistic time estimate:
The task was said to take ~3 hours, but in reality, it required much more. Understanding their internal codebase, custom DSL, and crypto domain logic took several hours by itself. Completing and polishing the solution took 8–12 hours total.
2. Task revisions required:
After submission, I received feedback asking for improvements and refactoring. I fixed the key issue and quickly resubmitted the solution.
3. Slow and inconsistent communication:
I was told to expect feedback by the end of the day, but received a response only a week later, after following up.
4. No chance to talk to engineers:
Despite fixing the only major issue they mentioned, I was rejected without being invited to a technical interview.
5. Lack of actionable feedback:
The final response was vague and high-level, with no specific examples or opportunity for technical discussion, making it difficult to understand what went wrong and how it could be improved.
General impression:
The process requires a significant time investment (unpaid) and prioritizes perfection in a complex domain over evaluating core engineering and problem-solving skills. Combined with delayed communication and limited feedback, it felt unbalanced and discouraging.
