Given the other stories about how they operate, I wouldn't be especially shocked if their starting offers varied wildly over time, even on no particular basis.
Drop to 40. You'll get more done. Trust me.
It's no way to live though, in particular on an ongoing basis. The cost is just too high. I still wouldn't be averse to the odd bit of overwork when it comes to the crunch but these days that's very much as a favour to my employer - and one I know is appreciated.
If expectation is 60 hours, you would need to push 80 hours to stand out the way you did. 60 hours would not get you a pat on the back.
People in finance do it. The difference is that if you push 80 hours for 5 years and you are not culled, the pay becomes massive with senior developer level base salary with contractual guarantee of 150% salary as bonus. You can retire in your early 30's or continue working 80 hours. Except that now 80 hours becomes "management 80 hours" - i.e. just having your phone with you counts as working.
If you're working in a place where everybody is working 60 hours and competing to be the richest man in the graveyard then yeah it's not much.
But when you're working an extra 2 hours a day on your own then yeah - then that's something. It's all relative.
In my opinion you are often doing yourself and your fellow workers a disservice by working that much for free. If you own the company this is a different matter of course.
There are mitigating factors to this i.e. each additional member of your headcount incurs their own cost overhead; also that certain roles and responsibilities can't be serialised so easily.
2. Smart coworkers (well before this came out)
3. Good compensation (I heard for top tier applicants, they give something like MSFT total comp as salary with a ridiculous amount of paper money)
4. Assumed less bureaucracy compared to Big Cos because of unicorn/start up status
5. Ability to develop the first X in the new ride sharing/autonomous car industry
Uber would be a good fit for someone who specifically wants to work at a big_unicorn with large scale technology problems.
Most engineers wouldn't be able to accurately evaluate the ability of the leadership of tech companies, so that negative is out the door.
For the ethics portion, that's subjective.
For the cut-throat nature of the company, I heard that it was worse than most tech companies but not terrible (60+ hr/wks) like some financial companies.