Really, really bad idea.
Marketing without product market fit is a huge red flag imo.
In the Bay Area $135k salary isn't even enough to rent a one bedroom apartment at current rates.
If you make $135k in the rust belt you can live in a McMansion and own two cars.
Whether it's worth the opportunity cost is another question.
You mean "in San Francisco" — I live in the East Bay and split a one-bedroom with my boyfriend for $1400 per month.
There is zero crime since I live in the hills. There are nice restaurants and nice people.
So yeah, please continue thinking that this place is uninhabitable and stay in SF. :)
Funny how people said the same thing about the Mission 10 years ago, or Oakland 5 years ago.
Plus is probably the worst possible commute location while still being in the Bay.
Don't get me wrong - the hills are nice, but there are PLENTY of reasons why your place is cheap.
According to their Crunchbase [0] (which could obviously be incomplete), there's no institutional investors listed in their initial or seed round. I mean it's one thing to waste other people's money on a dumb idea, but this seems masochistic.
[0] https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/1for-one#/entity
edit: Another befuddling thing besides the enormous headcount was the fact that the original whistleblower was brought in from Dallas and offered equity and a $135K salary and a signing bonus. That seems like a huge chunk of money for a marketing executive at a small tech startup. Again, ignoring the reality that he couldn't really afford her, what did the CEO imagine would be investors' reaction to such a pricey hire?