Senior blockchain dev here — how do mature Web3 teams calibrate interviews differently than early-stage startups (and what should I read from it)?

I’m a senior blockchain developer and I’m noticing a pattern that’s messing with my decision-making.

When I interview with more established Web3 teams (shipping product, actual users, clearer org), the loop feels calmer and more consistent — like they’re trying to reduce false positives and check “can you operate at our bar long-term.”

But with early-stage startups, the process often turns into extremes: either “do everything end-to-end” (smart contracts + infra + DevOps + security) or “just ship fast” without a clear evaluation rubric.

I’m trying to understand how experienced teams calibrate interviews and what it reveals about engineering maturity. For people who’ve hired in both worlds:

• What changes in the loop design (take-home vs live, system design, code review, incident/debug rounds, security depth)?

• What signals do mature teams weight more (tradeoffs, reliability mindset, PR quality, threat modeling, collaboration, onchain debugging)?

• What do early-stage teams say they want vs what they actually reward (speed, ambiguity tolerance, ownership)?

• What are red flags of a miscalibrated process (busywork take-homes, inconsistent scoring, “vibes” rounds, unrealistic scope)?

I’m not asking “which is better” — I’m trying to read the process like a signal so I don’t join the wrong team. What should I pay attention to before I say yes?