Tech hiring is broken on both sides, and everyone just accepts it. Candidates hand over their full info to a platform on day one — then get cold-messaged for roles that even don't match and never see a salary number until the third call. Recruiters, meanwhile, fly blind: they pay from 20+% of a hire's monthly salary as a success fee to such platforms/agencies... Or even worse, pay-per-job-post... I wanted to fix the asymmetry of trust. So DevHunt is built privacy-first: a candidate's contact details stay hidden until they decide to share them in chat. Salaries are shown upfront, in plain numbers. And recruiters get a real ATS, pipeline analytics, NPS feedbacks from candidates, and an employer-branding page — on a flat monthly subscription, not a cut of every hire. The goal was simple: make the candidate the one in control, and give recruiters the data they've never had, and a fair price for this. I started out building "a better job board." That framing was wrong. The deeper I got, the clearer it became that the product isn't the listings — it's the trust model around them. Once I reframed it as "who owns the candidate's data and when," everything downstream changed: how matching works, what a recruiter can see, when contact info unlocks. The privacy-first contact flow became the spine of the whole platform rather than a feature. Is this was something new? - ofcourse not, but how we treat it is metter. The business model shifted too. A 20+% - success-fee model quietly punishes the recruiters who hire well. Moving to a flat subscription meant the incentive is to make hiring work, not to maximize placements. And at the end I see this product to be not a "a marketplace with listings" to "an operating system for hiring that respects everyone in the loop."

DevHunt

Direct tech hiring

Direct tech hiring