I recently wrote a post asking for feedback on an interview process we’re working to improve. One section focused on asking questions to determine whether a candidate would align with our company culture.

What interested me most was the response to that specific topic. Several people said that “cultural fit” is often used to hide personal bias**;** or, frankly, as a convenient way to describe someone an interviewer or leader simply doesn’t like.

That made me want to explore the subject more deeply.

Do you believe culture is genuinely important to a company’s success, or is it often used to disguise bias and personal preference?

Have you ever worked for a company where the culture was clearly defined, consistently modeled, and supported at every level? If so, what made it feel real rather than just words on a wall?

I recently wrote a post asking for feedback on an interview process we’re working to improve. One section focused on asking questions to determine whether a candidate would align with our company culture.

What interested me most was the response to that specific topic. Several people said that “cultural fit” is often used to hide personal bias**;** or, frankly, as a convenient way to describe someone an interviewer or leader simply doesn’t like.

That made me want to explore the subject more deeply.

Do you believe culture is genuinely important to a company’s success, or is it often used to disguise bias and personal preference?

Have you ever worked for a company where the culture was clearly defined, consistently modeled, and supported at every level? If so, what made it feel real rather than just words on a wall?

For those of you who have worked in retail, or really any organization, I’m curious about the place you look back on and think, that was a genuinely great company to work for.

You don’t have to name the company. I’m more interested in what made the experience so good.

Was it the culture? The people around you? Your boss? The work itself? The opportunities you were given? The way the company treated people? The feeling that what you were doing actually mattered?

Or was it something completely different?

I’d especially love to hear what that company or its leaders actually did that made it feel different from other places you’ve worked.

And if you left, do you still look back on it positively? What made that experience stick with you?

I’m genuinely interested in hearing people’s experiences, especially the things great companies do that are harder to put on a benefits sheet or company values poster.

I want to do something a little different.

I’m giving away $100 total — $25 to four people.

I’m not going to ask why you need it. You don’t need to share your situation, tell a personal story, explain what the money is for, or convince me that you deserve it more than someone else.

Sometimes those stories are hard to share, and frankly, I don’t like the idea of deciding whose circumstances are more deserving.

So we’re keeping this simple.

Pick a number between 1 and 1,000 and comment it below.

I WILL IGNORE ALL DMs / INBOX REQUESTS

The only way to participate is by replying to this post.

A few rules:

• One guess per person.
• Please do not edit your comment.
• Please do not DM or inbox me. Inbox messages will be ignored.
• The first four people who get the number I selected will each receive $25.
• If there is a tie, the person who posted their guess first wins the tie.
• I will select and announce the winners by the end of the day tomorrow, Sunday, September 6.
• Winners will not be asked for identification, proof of need, income information, or their story.
• The only information I will need from a winner is the PayPal or Venmo information necessary to send the $25.

That’s it.

No application. No sad story. No judgment about why you need it.

Just pick a number and have a little fun.

Good luck. ❤️

A Healthy Lending Community Has to Work Both Ways

I’ve seen a lot of concern lately from borrowers about getting scammed by people claiming to be lenders, and I think that concern is completely fair.

We talk a lot about lenders protecting themselves from bad borrowers, but borrowers should be protecting themselves too.

At the end of the day, both people are taking a risk.

The lender is trusting a stranger with their money.

The borrower may be trusting a stranger with personal information.

If we want this to be a healthy community, both sides should understand what reasonable verification looks like and, just as importantly, what it should never look like.

What I Would Ask For as a Lender

As a lender, I personally would ask a new borrower for a few things:

• A valid photo ID, with the ID number blocked out.

• A picture that reasonably confirms the person matches the ID.

• Two recent paystubs or another reasonable way to verify income and the ability to repay. Anything unrelated or overly sensitive can be covered.

• A working phone number or another reliable way to communicate.

• In some situations, I may ask if there is an established social account such as Facebook that helps confirm identity. I don’t think that should always be required, though. Some people understandably want to keep Reddit separate from their personal life.

I would also look at Reddit history, previous loans, communication and whether the overall request makes sense.

None of that is about trying to invade someone’s privacy.

It’s simply about getting comfortable enough to lend money to someone I don’t personally know.

What I Would Never Ask For

Borrowers should also know there are things a legitimate lender should never need from you.

I don’t need your Social Security number.

I don’t need your bank login.

I don’t need your passwords or PIN.

I don’t need a verification code sent to your phone.

I don’t need access to any of your accounts.

And I will never ask you to send me money before I send you a loan.

No verification fee.

No deposit.

No insurance payment.

No “send me $25 and I’ll release your $200.”

If someone claiming to be a lender needs you to pay them before they can help you, that should be a huge warning sign.

Lenders Should Earn Trust Too

I also think lenders should be willing to establish some trust themselves.

If I offer you a loan, you should be able to look at my Reddit history.

You should be able to see that I publicly responded to your request.

You should be able to ask me questions.

You should never feel pressured into immediately sending personal information just because someone offered you money.

Having the money doesn’t automatically make someone trustworthy.

Trust should go both ways.

Verification Is Not the Same as Exploitation

I also don’t think borrowers should automatically assume that a lender asking for verification is doing something wrong.

There is a big difference between verification and exploitation.

“Can I reasonably confirm who you are?”

“Can I confirm that you have income?”

“Does your repayment date line up with when you actually get paid?”

Those are reasonable questions when someone is considering sending their own money to a stranger.

“Send me money first.”

“Give me your password.”

“Send me the code you just received.”

“Let me access your bank account.”

Those are completely different.

What a Healthy Lending Community Should Look Like

My hope is that we can build a community where good borrowers understand why good lenders need to protect themselves, and good lenders understand that borrowers deserve protection too.

Ask questions.

Communicate.

Protect personal information that doesn’t need to be shared.

Keep loan activity documented.

And if something feels wrong, there is nothing wrong with walking away.

The goal shouldn’t be to make borrowing harder or lending harder.

It should be to make both safer.

Because a healthy lending community isn’t built on one person blindly trusting another.

It’s built when both people give each other a reason to trust.

I am normally pretty understanding when it comes to balancing a game.

If something is completely broken, fix it. If something isn't working as intended, communicate it and make the adjustment. I get that.

But I think Grow a Garden crossed a completely different line with the Albino Peacock.

The Albino Peacock wasn't just another pet that you could grind for, hatch from an egg, or get by playing an event.

This was a DLC pet tied to merchandise people purchased with real money.

Grow a Garden merchandise has been sold through major retailers like Target with DLC codes specifically advertised as unlocking exclusive in-game rewards. And because those rewards were random, people didn't necessarily buy one toy and magically get an Albino Peacock.

Some people bought a LOT of them trying to get one.

That matters.

People spent $20, $40, $100 and, in some cases, hundreds of dollars chasing these DLC pets. Others spent huge amounts of tokens trading for them because there was no normal way to simply earn one in the game.

And what made the Albino Peacock valuable?

Its ability.

For months, the Albino Peacock could advance the cooldown of surrounding pets while also advancing its own cooldown. Players built entire pet setups around that ability. People leveled them, mutated them, traded for them and, yes, spent real money trying to obtain them.

Then months later...

It's gone.

The Albino no longer advances its own cooldown.

Call it a nerf. Call it a bug fix. Call it whatever you want.

The result for the person who paid for the pet is exactly the same:

The product they spent money obtaining no longer performs the way it performed when they bought it.

And that is where I have a serious problem.

If this was truly an unintended bug, why was it allowed to operate this way for months?

Why was merchandise containing this DLC being sold while it operated this way?

Why were players allowed to build entire setups around it?

Why wasn't the community told months ago that the ability wasn't intended?

And most importantly, why wasn't there communication BEFORE changing it?

That is why I don't think this conversation should simply be dismissed as, "Developers are allowed to balance their game."

Of course they are.

But there is a major difference between nerfing a free pet someone hatched during an event and materially changing an exclusive DLC pet people obtained through real-money merchandise.

At some point this becomes a question of consumer trust.

And maybe even a consumer-protection question.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not claiming a court has determined that what Grow a Garden did is illegal. I also understand that Roblox's terms give developers broad control over digital content.

But I think it is completely reasonable to question where the line should be.

If a company can sell physical merchandise by promoting exclusive digital rewards, allow those rewards to operate a certain way for months, and then substantially reduce their usefulness after consumers have already spent their money, what exactly is the consumer buying?

Because "we can change it whenever we want" might be buried somewhere in terms and conditions.

That doesn't make it good business.

And it definitely doesn't build trust.

My bigger concern is the pattern this creates.

A powerful pet comes out.

Players want it.

People spend money, tokens and hundreds of hours building around it.

Eventually enough players obtain it.

Then it gets nerfed.

Now everyone starts looking for the next pet or setup that actually works.

That means more grinding.

More tokens.

More trading.

More DLC.

More money.

Then someday that pet becomes "too good" too.

And the cycle starts again.

I cannot say that is Grow a Garden's intention.

But I can absolutely say that is what it feels like from the player's side.

And that perception should matter to the developers.

Because eventually players stop asking, "What's the next great pet?"

They start asking:

"Why would I spend money on another one when you can just ruin it later?"

That is an incredibly dangerous question for a game built around collecting, trading and chasing rare items.

I actually love Grow a Garden. That's why this frustrates me.

I'm not asking the developers to never balance another pet.

I'm asking them to recognize that paid DLC should be treated differently.

Restore the Albino Peacock's original ability.

If there truly is some technical reason that can't happen, explain it openly to the community and find a way to preserve the value and usefulness of the pet people paid to obtain.

And going forward, establish a very simple standard:

If you're selling exclusive digital content through real-money merchandise, don't fundamentally change what people paid for months after they bought it.

And if something absolutely must be changed, communicate it, explain why, and make it right for the people affected.

This isn't really about one Peacock.

It's about whether players can trust that the next thing they spend their time or money obtaining will still be worth having six months later.

Because once that trust is gone, getting it back is a whole lot harder than fixing one pet.

I am normally pretty understanding when it comes to balancing a game.

If something is completely broken, fix it. If something isn't working as intended, communicate it and make the adjustment. I get that.

But I think Grow a Garden crossed a completely different line with the Albino Peacock.

The Albino Peacock wasn't just another pet that you could grind for, hatch from an egg, or get by playing an event.

This was a DLC pet tied to merchandise people purchased with real money.

Grow a Garden merchandise has been sold through major retailers like Target with DLC codes specifically advertised as unlocking exclusive in-game rewards. And because those rewards were random, people didn't necessarily buy one toy and magically get an Albino Peacock.

Some people bought a LOT of them trying to get one.

That matters.

People spent $20, $40, $100 and, in some cases, hundreds of dollars chasing these DLC pets. Others spent huge amounts of tokens trading for them because there was no normal way to simply earn one in the game.

And what made the Albino Peacock valuable?

Its ability.

For months, the Albino Peacock could advance the cooldown of surrounding pets while also advancing its own cooldown. Players built entire pet setups around that ability. People leveled them, mutated them, traded for them and, yes, spent real money trying to obtain them.

Then months later...

It's gone.

The Albino no longer advances its own cooldown.

Call it a nerf. Call it a bug fix. Call it whatever you want.

The result for the person who paid for the pet is exactly the same:

The product they spent money obtaining no longer performs the way it performed when they bought it.

And that is where I have a serious problem.

If this was truly an unintended bug, why was it allowed to operate this way for months?

Why was merchandise containing this DLC being sold while it operated this way?

Why were players allowed to build entire setups around it?

Why wasn't the community told months ago that the ability wasn't intended?

And most importantly, why wasn't there communication BEFORE changing it?

That is why I don't think this conversation should simply be dismissed as, "Developers are allowed to balance their game."

Of course they are.

But there is a major difference between nerfing a free pet someone hatched during an event and materially changing an exclusive DLC pet people obtained through real-money merchandise.

At some point this becomes a question of consumer trust.

And maybe even a consumer-protection question.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not claiming a court has determined that what Grow a Garden did is illegal. I also understand that Roblox's terms give developers broad control over digital content.

But I think it is completely reasonable to question where the line should be.

If a company can sell physical merchandise by promoting exclusive digital rewards, allow those rewards to operate a certain way for months, and then substantially reduce their usefulness after consumers have already spent their money, what exactly is the consumer buying?

Because "we can change it whenever we want" might be buried somewhere in terms and conditions.

That doesn't make it good business.

And it definitely doesn't build trust.

My bigger concern is the pattern this creates.

A powerful pet comes out.

Players want it.

People spend money, tokens and hundreds of hours building around it.

Eventually enough players obtain it.

Then it gets nerfed.

Now everyone starts looking for the next pet or setup that actually works.

That means more grinding.

More tokens.

More trading.

More DLC.

More money.

Then someday that pet becomes "too good" too.

And the cycle starts again.

I cannot say that is Grow a Garden's intention.

But I can absolutely say that is what it feels like from the player's side.

And that perception should matter to the developers.

Because eventually players stop asking, "What's the next great pet?"

They start asking:

"Why would I spend money on another one when you can just ruin it later?"

That is an incredibly dangerous question for a game built around collecting, trading and chasing rare items.

I actually love Grow a Garden. That's why this frustrates me.

I'm not asking the developers to never balance another pet.

I'm asking them to recognize that paid DLC should be treated differently.

Restore the Albino Peacock's original ability.

If there truly is some technical reason that can't happen, explain it openly to the community and find a way to preserve the value and usefulness of the pet people paid to obtain.

And going forward, establish a very simple standard:

If you're selling exclusive digital content through real-money merchandise, don't fundamentally change what people paid for months after they bought it.

And if something absolutely must be changed, communicate it, explain why, and make it right for the people affected.

This isn't really about one Peacock.

It's about whether players can trust that the next thing they spend their time or money obtaining will still be worth having six months later.

Because once that trust is gone, getting it back is a whole lot harder than fixing one pet.