Staff Software Engineer Full Stack
Hybrid | North America | IC-Only
Read This Before ApplyingThis 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:
-
615 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 rsum-driven architecture.
Compensation & Ownership-
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.
Work Model-
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.
Recruiter Reject-Fast Checklist (Elite Filter)
Reject immediately if ANY of the following are true:
Role Alignment-
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
