Top comment on the blog post : “I hope your KPI isn't tied to effectively running the company because I'd say your performance rating is "significantly below expectations" and we both know what that means.“
Let’s see if the PR damage people delete it.
VCs should observe this kind of behavior as a serious risk to company morale and productivity. In the modern age of social activists, we really can’t have another Larry Ollisen escape through extortion of their employees. This issue needs to be exposed and put up as an example: your company’s most important asset are the people. Treat them professionally and with respect or you’re doomed to die. We are neither in a 80’s regimented business era nor this is a military organization.
There are times when social media does good - exposing deep habitual issues of extortion and exploitation. I don’t know how many other startups have this kind of toxic environment. It’s legal but shouldn’t be ok and should be met with the decline and demise of the company.
I find Monzo to be a great counter example to this. They've a great, employee supportive culture and are very open and transparent around it. They've great PR and said culture seems to be a major part of why.
Disclaimer: I invested a small amount in their last crowdfunding round
CEO Nikolay Storonsky gave an interview to Business Insider where he said Revolut’s philosophy was to “get shit done”, a slogan that is emblazoned on the company's London office walls in bright neon lights. In an echo to what was going on in these calls, Storonsky would go on to say in the interview that the company attracted people that want to grow and “growing is always through pain”.
Sources say at least one former head of HR resigned after failing to convince Storonsky that the company had to change its dogmatic approach to performance targets. In the last two years a total of three different people have headed the HR department, the last one leaving two months before Revolut's use of the controversial home task was revealed. At the time of writing, Revolut has more than 200 vacancies listed on its website.
> Revolut's "home task" required applicants for various positions to recruit new app users. "200 or more sign-ups would be a very strong indication that you’d go into the next round of
interview", the document read
They verify your liveness and identity documents while opening an account.
Disclaimer: I work for the company that provides this service to revolut.
Side note: It's actually surprisingly difficult to verify that a document isn't fraudulent, and traditional in-person banks that accept documents in person are more susceptible to fraud than you might think. Is the average account exec trained as a border control agent? Do they read the MRZ lines?
Which translates to: "No check of credit worthiness, no ID verification". So either it's different in some countries or it's false advertising. Either way. Banks are the one thing I'm scared of getting the Silicon Valley treatment.
They get ID sufficient to prove the identify of the person opening the account and for banks to report suspicious deposits. Every account I've opened in the last two decades has scanned or made a copy of my ID and required my social security number. The US is my only experience with opening bank accounts though. I'm pretty sure it is required to provide ID to open a traditional bank account.
I’ve definitely opened several US bank accounts without visiting in person or sending a scan of my ID. They do attempt to verify your identity through other means, like asking about stuff from your credit report.
Same here, and I think it's a better way to handle it.
If the person opening the account is physically standing in the bank lobby, showing ID is strong evidence they are who they say they are.
But accepting a scanned copy of an ID online is in many ways more risky than alternative verification methods, it only tells you that the person had access to a picture of an ID. It's assumed that would be difficult if they weren't who they say they are, but that's not a reasonable assumption and banks clearly know that.
I wouldn't be surprised if identity thieves have access to real scans of IDs at this point. A lot of online services have been asking people to scan and upload them for things like "verifying" your Twitter or Facebook account, so people may not be as cautious about doing that as they should be.
That must have been a long time ago. Insofar as I've experienced it while changing countries, rules have been tightened quite a bit in Europe and North America in the aftermaths of 9/11 and the 2008 financial crisis.
I semi-regularly shop around for the best interest rate on a savings account and open one if I see one that’s sufficiently better. I’ve never had to visit one in person, and don’t believe I’ve ever had to send a scan of my ID.
For a concrete example, I opened a savings account with Capital One 360 about a year ago. I did it at home from the comfort of my computer and it took me just a few minutes.
As far as I remember, but I signed up a few years ago, I had to got through video chat and show my id (moving it into the light to make the security features shine, etc) there.
I'm not sure how efficient it is, but it's not as bad as your parent implies. It was about the same procedure as for N26. Orange Bank on the other hand just asks for scans.
I don't know anything about what happened, but something doesn't add up. Why would a CFO of a successful company resign just because he doesn't have global banking experience? Sounds like BS.
Large organizations generally provide people at the C-level options to tender their resignation rather than hitting the news with supposed firing (or letting go). Firing connotes a lot of negativity as well as from a public relations perspective, they want to ensure that this process would generate the least amount of noise.
Let’s see if the PR damage people delete it.
VCs should observe this kind of behavior as a serious risk to company morale and productivity. In the modern age of social activists, we really can’t have another Larry Ollisen escape through extortion of their employees. This issue needs to be exposed and put up as an example: your company’s most important asset are the people. Treat them professionally and with respect or you’re doomed to die. We are neither in a 80’s regimented business era nor this is a military organization.
There are times when social media does good - exposing deep habitual issues of extortion and exploitation. I don’t know how many other startups have this kind of toxic environment. It’s legal but shouldn’t be ok and should be met with the decline and demise of the company.