Andrei Mellas

Founder Adapt Grow Fitness & Ai Interdisciplinary Collective

I'm passionate about human optimization unlocking ways to enhance physical recovery, cognitive performance, and overall resilience through evidence-informed approaches.

After years exploring mindset, strength training, neuroplasticity, and alternative therapies (from HRV tracking to psychedelic research), I've pivoted to building resources that empower informed decisions in emerging fields.

In 2026, I launched The Peptide List (www.thepeptidelist.com)—an independent, unbiased directory of 550+ verified peptide providers across the US (physicians, 503A/503B pharmacies, clinics, telehealth, labs) and an encyclopedia of 55+ research peptides.
Key features:

Comprehensive, searchable provider listings (no affiliates or endorsements)
Detailed peptide profiles (mechanisms, research insights, categories like weight loss or tissue repair)
Community-driven reviews and submissions

My goal: Cut through the noise in the peptides space with transparency and neutrality. 

This is for informational purposes only not medical advice. Always consult licensed professionals.
Previously, I founded/built ADAPT GROW FITNESS, focusing on physical and mental strength coaching.
Open to collaborations in biohacking, longevity, and health tech. 

Let's connect if you're researching peptides or optimizing performance!

#Biohacking #Peptides #Longevity #HumanOptimization #ResearchChemicals

Founder

Conducting research and analysis on the applications and implications of data analysis and artificial intelligence, and to use the findings of this research to promote the public good and benefit society through the development and deployment of ethical, responsible, and effective Al technologies and practices.

Hiring rarely fails loudly. It fails quietly first.You see it when outcomes don't move after a "strong hire." When alignment meetings create silence. When the team starts protecting themselves instead of shipping.I learned this the hard way. Watched it happen. Now I help leaders avoid it.I'm Jess. I run Nonstop Talent in NZ.I work with leaders hiring for roles where the downside is high and the signal is messy. Engineering. Product. Data. Cyber. The hires that determine whether you ship or stall.My approach is simple:Clarify the outcome the hire must changeIdentify the real risks in your context (team, pace, constraints)Headhunt candidates who have done this kind of work in this kind of environmentIf you're hiring for impact, not activity, message me the role and what "must be different by day 90."

Jessica Dong

I pitched a $180k role last week.
3 days in the office.

Candidate passed.

My brain went: ‘Easy. I’ll find someone closer.’
Then I caught myself.

Because a 3-day office rule isn’t a culture filter.

It’s a radius.

You’re not sorting for loyalty.
You’re sorting for who can commute without hating you.

And that’s the part no one prices in:
the best person might be 45 minutes too far away.

Not wrong.
Just call it what it is.

Jessica Xin Dong

SaaS + Enterprise Digital Hiring | Contract & Perm | Cut cost of delay

I’m an agency recruiter, so I get the version candidates say when they’re trying not to get burnt twice.

Last week, before salary, before benefits, before any of the selling… a senior engineer just went:

“Who’s paying the company right now: customers, or just investors?”

And you could feel why they asked.

They weren’t being difficult.
They were doing self-defence.

Because they’ve watched the movie where the deck is beautiful, the roadmap is loud, everyone’s “moving fast”…

…and then three months later it’s quiet layoffs, quiet rewrites, quiet people disappearing from Slack at 2pm on a Tuesday.

A CTO once said to me, really quietly:
“I didn’t lose my best engineer to more money. I lost them to another five years of untangling someone else’s mess.”

That’s the shift I’m noticing in 2026.

Salary still matters.

But the best people are interviewing for how long they can stay without shrinking.

So if your strongest candidates keep going cold right near the end…

what are they learning about the business in the interview loop that you’re not saying out loud yet?

Spoke to a senior engineer last Friday.

Not to pitch.
He’d already signed. I was just nosy.

I asked, “Why’d you pick them?”

He said, “They didn’t sell me.”

I was like… what do you mean?

He goes, “Every other place did the whole thing. Decks. Values. ‘We’re building something special.’ Two hours of talking at me.”

“These guys pulled up the actual problem. Like, the ugly bit. The thing they’re stuck on. Then they just… shut up and let me talk.”

He talked for 90 minutes.

Then they said, “Cool. Take a week. Talk to your people. Let us know.”

No “we need an answer by Tuesday.”
No weird pressure.

He said, “That’s what made me want it.”

I asked about money.

He laughed. “Lower.”

Then he said something I didn’t expect:

“Most places interview you like they’re trying to win you.
This place interviewed me like we were already on the same side.”

Anyway.

If you need to “close” a senior engineer…

What are you going to do in month 2 when the job isn’t fun anymore, and the deck is gone?

I tried AI to draw me doing my job.

It turned the mess into a highlight reel.

Clean. Strategic. Calm smile.
Charts floating around my head.
“HIRED!” stamped like a success story.

It felt boring.

Because real recruiting doesn’t look like that.

Real recruiting looks like
conversations that don’t go anywhere,
candidates who sound great then quietly hesitate,
hiring managers saying “something feels off” but not knowing why.

Most of the job lives in the messy middle.
Not on dashboards.
Not in frameworks.
Not in neat outcomes.

The quiet decision I see leaders making is trusting the highlight reel.

When that goes wrong, it’s not awkward.
It’s six months lost, a tired team, and a hire you’re still paying for while you fix the damage.

This is the bit that matters.

The best hires I’ve seen didn’t look impressive at first.
They just stopped the same problems from happening twice.

AI can draw the highlight reel.

But the value is still judgement, pattern memory, and asking the uncomfortable question early.

Saturday reminder:
If your work looks boring from the outside, there’s a good chance the real leverage is invisible.

I find what leaders miss. | Founder, Nonstop Talent

“The raise was nice… but it’s still the same Monday.”

I’ve been on these counteroffer calls for years.

The ones that actually stick… it’s rarely the money.

It’s when something changes in the room.

Different person they answer to.
Different kind of work.
Suddenly they’re in the meetings they used to hear about after.

Because if the problem was pay, they would’ve stayed the first time.

Most of the time it’s this:

Same manager.
Same politics.
Same ceiling.

So you pay more and you keep them…

but you keep the reason they were already half gone.

Then 8 weeks later you notice it.

They’re quieter.
They stop arguing.
They just ship what they’re told.

If someone resigns this month, are you fixing the “Monday”…

or just paying for it.

The dangerous BA hire isn’t the bad one.

It’s the one that makes the mess sound manageable.

Everyone relaxes in the interview.
Then week 6 hits: long “alignment” meetings… and engineers go quiet.

That quiet is the signal.

I wrote this newsletter for SaaS CEOs/CTOs replacing a BA.

You can have a funded SaaS company, smart people, a decent product, all the “right” tools… and still make the most expensive hire in the calmest, most

Open article: The interview signal looked perfect. The execution signal never arrived. by Jessica Xin Dong • 2 min read

The interview signal looked perfect. The execution signal never arrived.

We hired a Senior BA… and the pain still stayed.

Week 6 is when it shows.

A 90-minute “alignment” meeting… and your engineers go quiet.

That quiet isn’t mood. It’s the signal.

I’m a recruiter. I don’t sit in the meeting. I hear what happens after.

Tuesday’s newsletter is the case file.

Are you hiring to reduce pain… or to change outcomes?

Three alignment meetings can hide a $300k problem.

Because everyone walks out feeling good.

The meeting ends on time.
People nod.
Work starts.

And leaders think: “Great. We’re aligned.”

But half the time… nothing got decided.
It just got smoothed.

There’s usually one person absorbing the mess.

They rewrite the brief.
Fill the gaps.
Stitch five opinions into something the team can ship.

So from the outside, it looks like high performance.

From the inside, it’s one human acting like the decision system.

Then I hear the aftermath:

“I stopped asking what the decision was. I just made it work.”
“I wrote three versions of the same requirement.”
“It was fine… until real customers hit real volume.”

That’s where the $300k shows up.

Not in one dramatic failure.

In weeks of rework.
In slow releases.
In good people burning out.
In the wrong “senior” hire getting blamed for a system problem.

Quick question for leaders:

When you think you’re “aligned”… who is doing the translating after the meeting?

A ‘small’ button change quietly cost them 12 weeks.

I don’t sit in the meeting. I interview what happens after.

It never starts as scope creep. It starts as politeness.

A “tiny” request lands in Slack. Someone says “sure”. The Jira ticket keeps the same name, but the work under it changes every day, and nobody ever calls it a decision.

A dev told me, ‘I stop estimate. Every morning it change.’
QA said, ‘I test it already… then new requirement come in again.’
Product said, ‘We were nearly done for weeks. I can’t explain without sounding like I’m making excuses.

Nothing blows up. That’s the problem.

No incident. No villain. Just lots of small yeses hiding inside a ticket that still looks “small” on a board, until the roadmap quietly gets thinner and the team goes flat.

If I opened your last two sprints right now, which “small” ticket became five different features without anyone ever naming the moment it changed?

Time pressure doesn’t break teams. It makes them agree too fast.

Not the dramatic kind.
The polite kind.

“We'll fix it later.”
“We can make it work.”
“Let’s just move.”

Urgency doesn’t make teams dumb.
It makes them agreeable.

Speed is useful. Agreeableness is expensive.

And that’s the exact moment the bar drops.

And just so we’re clear, this is the part recruiters don’t get paid for: talking you out of a fast hire that turns into a slow bleed.

Friday poll: when hiring urgency hits, what breaks first?

A) We changed the scope again
B) We hired the confident talker
C) No one owned the decision
D) Team goes quiet and nodded

Vote like you’ve lived it.

when hiring urgency hits, what breaks first?

The author can see how you vote. Learn more

taplio

The Battle

Andrei Mellas

Jessica Dong

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreJessica Dong's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Andrei Mellas

Jessica Dong

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Jessica Dong's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreJessica Dong's LinkedIn Performance