I often discuss Jane Street as a great model of employee branding. They do well placed adverts/sponsorships (e.g. Standup Maths[0]), they produce a quite decent quality podcast (Signals and Threads [1]), and they have consistent monthly puzzles [2]. That level of investment in branding only makes sense, I think, at a large size. I'm kind of surprised they only have ~2500 people.
Jane Street has been doing this since they were much smaller. I interned there when they had like 300 people, and they were actively cultivating a great brand as an employer back then too—and looks like they've really made it work over the last decade!
My impression with them in general was that they were willing to do lots of things that did not "conventionally" make sense at their size, and those things paid off. The internship program, for example, was relatively large in comparison to the size of the company at the time (≈50 interns?) and had lots of structure (events/talks/classes/group projects/etc) like you would expect from a big tech company, not from a 300-person firm.
They were also willing to build a lot of tools in-house like their own build system[1], their own code reviews system[2], etc. Most people would see this as wasteful NIH but I'm convinced it was a net benefit for them—they managed to be so productive in an absolute sense and especially on a per-engineer basis because they were willing to build so much themselves, not despite it. I'm sure the same thing applied to their recruiting efforts.
The biggest thing I took away from my internship was how much conventional wisdom in the software world was not necessary or true.
They used to be very active in the NYC Meetup scene, too. ~~I think I visited at least two of their offices and the second was was stunning. It was far south enough and high enough that there was a nearly unobstructed 200° view of the southern end of Manhattan, both rivers, etc. It was also beautifully designed and had an obligatorily huge, open, stocked kitchen.~~ (This was actually Two Sigma.) They were also using exotic tech back then, too, like OCaml, which is itself a form of marketing and helps with recruitment.
Moral qualms aside, it must be a fascinating place to work.
I highlighted Jane Street's recruiting outreaches specifically, when talking with an R&D unit at a big financial institution. (I also mentioned the tactic of fringe-tech-that-some-heavy-hitters-love. OCaml, Lisp, Rust, Erlang, etc.)
When I first heard of Jane Street, it sounded like Yaron Minsky was going around to MIT and such, high-touch, trying to hire just a few people. And later, things like this blog: https://blog.janestreet.com/author/yminsky/
The only negative thing I recall hearing is Jane Street alumni responsible for the infamous FTX and Alameda Research. I don't know whether the individuals were already fully into hopped-up sociopathic/narcissistic thinking in college, or whether their internship and employment experience contributed.
I work in quantitative finance and have wanted to to start using OCaml at work for years. I just find that unless you are at a shop like Jane Street with a well developed proprietary code base, internally developed tooling, etc, there just isn't the ecosystem available for me to be nearly as productive as I can be in other well accepted languages in the quant dev space...which is a bummer. It's been a little while since the last time I investigated this though.
It's brilliant if you think about it as an employer that wants to limit employee turnover. Great, you're an ace algo dev in OCaml, where you gonna jump ship to?
> The real money is at the top. The bond prospectus reveals that Jane Street has 40 “equity unit holders on a full-time basis and in good standing”, with an average tenure of 16 years. Among those there will be at least a handful of billionaires, even if no Jane Streeter appears on any rich lists.
Sounds like any other partnership. A few people at the top are providing the equity and getting a profit share, and the thousands under them are getting salaries.
Great comment from the FT's comments section on this piece.
> A good mate who runs and wrecks expensive cars for hobby once reminded me that course plotting (i.e. research) and braking (i.e. risk management) are the two sine qua non contributors to a successful race.
Along with a reminder that disasters happen when businesses forget this (Boeing!)
I love them because they keep the OCaml dream alive, but any company shouldn't have this kind of reach, especially in the realm of automation. This probably won't end well...
Meanwhile I'd love to know what their edge is... It's probably more than OCaml, although... ;)
What kind of reach? Just making a lot of money?From the article, it looks like they make a lot from market making in ETFs and similar. Thats an extremely competitive market that is necessarily a race to the bottom in terms of pricing
I think OCaml is more of symptom of the people who they hire. Most companies don't want to hire OCaml and Haskellers. They fear they would be too expensive, and requires clear thinking so you can't hire bottom of the bucket devs.
If you want to hire the best and willing to pay that is no longer a concern
Well 30-40 or more would be just needed to maintain OCaml codebase. Unless basic unit of bonus, salary, buying, selling, vendor payments, building maintenance and so on is OCaml lines of code, I would have guessed ~1000 people for sure.
Might also be that Jane Street is to OCaml what WhatsApp was to Erlang. Many ascribed the success of the small team at WhatsApp to their tech-stack, Erlang and FreeBSD. The reality probably was that they had hired really smart people, and those people choose to use Erlang (because eJabberd), but they could have been just as successful using another language.
Yes, Jane Street uses OCaml, they have no reason to stop using OCaml, but may very well have been just as successful using another language. It's hard to tell, when we don't know the full circumstances of why they went with OCaml initially.
The paradox being: developer familiar with programming languages of level of power N doesn't recognize that languages of level N+ are better (more powerful expressively), only that N- are lesser.
Interesting, yesterday there was a thread on reddit in /r/ExperiencedDevs asking "What place is known as the ones with the best engineers now? One where if you saw that place on their resume you'd automatically assume they were good?"
And one of the answers was Jane St. Apparently they produce great engineers.
> Jane Street is stupidly profitable — net trading revenues of $4.4bn in the first quarter, after a $10.5bn haul in 2023, and a profit margin north of 70 per cent — but it bears repeating. That is the fourth straight year of net trading revenues exceeding $10bn. Gross revenues came at a record $21.9bn in 2023, up 34 per cent from 2022.
Yes, I suppose this is all something to get all starry-eyed over, Jane Street encroaching on Citadel Securities, the two of whom control 30% of the US equity market volume.
I see it another way. I see people's hard earned money being siphoned by enormous financially-engineered vacuums, never to be seen again. And not just in the US, globally. This won't stop at 30% of the US equity market. It won't stop until the music stops and the last chair breaks. Which may or may not be soon. It will certainly be coming at some point.
Five times the London Stock Exchange’s entire trading volumes in 2023 in just your ETF arm? Sure ... this sounds like reasonable growth ...
> This is why some people argue that APs like Jane Street have become systemically important.
Oh, you don't say!
> About 80 per cent of the company’s capital comes from employee equity
That's adorable. They're like a little mom-and-pop shop ... except not anything like that.
> I see people's hard earned money being siphoned by enormous financially-engineered vacuums, never to be seen again.
can you expand on this? I have zero idea of what Jane street actually does and how they actually make money. (someone wrote that they have ~450 traders. trading what? equity? stocks? dark pools? PE? are they market makers? are they offering services to institution types?)
also what does "people's hard earned money" mean? you mean that Jane Street takes away their 401k or ... ?
They provide market liquidity. The chances that a seller and buyer come together at the exact same time across the 7.5 hours of open market operations is fairly low, so they buy from sellers and sell to buyers and hold in between to keep the markets liquid. This liquidity costs(often advertised as the bid/ask spread).
We could essentially close them down if we moved all trading to say 1 hour a day.
Though most retail traders are upset they can only trade 7.5hrs a day, they want to trade 24/7 instead. They seem to WANT the liquidity and are apparently willing to pay for it.
Me, I'm fine with trading for only an hour a day, but I get not everyone is as lackadaisical as me.
Unless you have a better mouse trap to solve the liquidity problem, this is the best we have for now.
I do agree with you. It's neither sustainable not really desirable, the amount of effort and resources and smart people dedicated to the financial sector.
That sounds interesting. Are there easy sources for seeing what companies drive US equity market volume? My google-fu failed me but maybe I am missing something specific in the fintech industry that tracks that kind of thing . . .
> I see it another way. I see people's hard earned money being siphoned by enormous financially-engineered vacuums, never to be seen again. And not just in the US, globally. This won't stop at 30% of the US equity market. It won't stop until the music stops and the last chair breaks. Which may or may not be soon. It will certainly be coming at some point.
Envious bullshit! The reason they are so profitable is that believe it or not they are replacing earlier operators who were less efficient and taking more transactions costs out of the system before. To be anti-Jane Street is the same as being pro-Big Bank of the past, that was taking more money out of the economy doing a worse job!
Unless you know the history of global financial markets and lived it then you don’t understand. For example in the late 80s the CBOT treasury bond bit had over 1000 traders in that pit. They were all making money and quite a few a huge amount. And there was many more people supporting those traders of the floor. That was just a single futures bond contract! With Jane Street we have 2,631 employees doing the equivalent job globally and for less total cost of at least 80,000 employees in late 80s.
The profits per employee are higher obviously but that’s the effect of technology and productivity but the total price being charged to the economy as a whole is much lower. This trend will continue and I would not be surprised in 10 years that a company of 200 people will provide the entire function of those 2600 today, and probably the profits per employee will be $10M per person. But that’s what we want, is a good thing not bad, portraying otherwise is just Envy.
> Which means they're rapidly coming to a position which will easily allow them to game the system (what used to be known as "cornering the market").
These are flows, not ownership.
Also, taking Citadel as an example, a vast portion of these flows are not their own, but rather thirs parties offloading their flows to them, so they have the underlying best execution guarantee to provide.
An other way to look at it is that investors are moving away from traditional brokers to execute their flows, because these HFT firms have become so good. So instead, investors offload their flows to HFTs acting as DMM instead.
Until a few decades ago, the term 'billion' actually meant one million million (1e12) in the UK, rather than the now commonly-accepted meaning of one thousand million (1e9). As a British paper, the FT may simply be trying to avoid the ambiguity.
Pretty common in finance across the board to use consistent units and to not use decimals. So in this case the following sentences mention $10 million, you would not want to say $0.10 billion. It depends on whats being presented of course but in large numbers like these, decimals make it harder to read.
Yeah, quants firms are great at PR and marketing. They give out free merch, sponsor hackathons, and organize in-person events with all expenses paid. I study at Berkeley and so many students here rock their merch, which gave them even more exposure on campus.
Their effort definitely paid off though. Quants like JS, Citadel, or Jump hire some of the brightest students from Berkeley and other top CS schools.
A) usually if you're fresh out of school they filter on your school name because the average MIT cs grad is most likely better than the average cs grad from university of kentucky.
B) if you have work experience, they filter on where you worked because the average google engineer / HFT engineer is probably better than your average engineer who works at missouri national bank.
C) if you've done something great that everyone knows about (like being the author of popular libraries, inventing tools that people use), then you can most likely bypass filters A and B if you can get in touch with a human recruiter (shouldn't be too hard).
For prestigious smaller companies which gets a lot of applicants, there is no easy way to reduce the pool without doing A and B. It is unfair and what college you go to might depend on circumstances beyond your control but if you have high ability regardless of what school you went to, you would eventually do B or C and get into the prestigious company.
If you don't have high ability and will never do either B or C, then they did the right thing filtering out your resume.
In the real world, it doesn't make sense for a company to discriminate against a candidate with higher ability just because they went to the wrong school (unless the company makes money from appearances like law firms, consulting firms or is corrupt and entrenched).
Its mostly done as a way to filter job applications into a smaller set. When Google was the 'hottest' job prospect (many years ago) they needed a way to reduce the set of applicants down to a number where hiring managers could handle the load. Setting criteria such as having an Ivy League degree or a CS degrees with GPA over 3.8 was a logical way to achieve this goal.
That being said, if you went to a community college but also had 10+ years experience at one of their competitors (eg: DE Shaw, 2Sig, Citadel, etc), you'd almost be guaranteed an interview. But once again, thats another very small set of applicants.
they get many applicants for a job. So you have to filter those applications. One way is to recruit from known places where they have already got people from as they know it worked. Typically those universities also filtered on how good you were and so the average quality is higher from those.
Obviously there will be exceptions but not work spending time to find them. Recruitment costs a lot in time and money.
I come from a very small provincial university, but they still reached out to me 2018, so I don't think so. (I bombed their interview and didn't get an offer, though).
> net trading revenues of $4.4bn in the first quarter
That's a lot of money for someone who is essentially a middle-man. What a grift, about 13 dollars for each average American lost out to them a quarter.
First, their trading's global, so "for each average American" isn't the right denominator, nor is it obvious to divide things on a per capita basis rather than a wealth-weighted one.
Second, it's not at all obvious that market-making is a zero-sum game, where profits to the market maker are "lost out" to someone else. Market-making profits from the bid/ask spread, but a new market maker tends to reduce that spread. Ordinary people tend to invest as price-takers, and thus they benefit from a reduced bid/ask spread.
> The only founder still at the firm is Rob Granieri, but insiders say it is functionally run by roughly 30-40 senior executives in what kinda resembles an incredibly profitable anarchist commune. Or as Jane Street itself puts it:
> We operate as a functionally-organized structure consisting of various management and risk committees. Each committee is responsible for directing the overall strategy of the firm and for emphasizing the importance of risk management to our operations. Each of our trading desks and business units is run by equity unit holders who take an active role in managing our day-to-day operations [...]. Our management structure allows for effective cross-departmental communication [...].
Yes, that org structure full of hierarchical business units with distinct responsibilities and committees and subcommittees and overseers and risk management totally screams "anarchy"...
Honestly 40-50 years ago all of the big investment banks were partnerships and operated in much the same way. Partners owned equity and by today's standards they were relatively risk averse because it was their money to lose, with no stock price to pump up.
SWE will probably make between 250-500k. Quants who can come up with profitable trading strategies can make a lot more. Managers of trading teams can make over 1MM and sometime a lot over 1MM depending on how profitable their teams perform.
SWE who have deep subject matter experience are super valuable to these firms. Folks who understand how to write low latency code, FPGA work and other stuff like that. But the real money is in figuring how "how and what" to trade. Once that's done, the SWEs can bang out the code.
This is the average, it'd be interesting to know what's the median for a SWE is. Also, some high-level SWE do make 900K at Google and others. Maybe for a similar set of skills, JS doesn't pay (much) more than Meta or Google?
"Average" is a meaningless number here considering the equity partners are getting ~100% of the profits. It is very different from the shareholder model of large tech companies, so a direct comparison is pointless.
Well, Tether only needs to hold treasuries and collect quarterly interest payments. They don't need much staff, at least if they haven't looted the treasuries SBF style.
andrew_eu|1 year ago
[0] https://www.youtube.com/user/standupmaths [1] https://signalsandthreads.com/ [2] https://www.janestreet.com/puzzles/current-puzzle/
tikhonj|1 year ago
My impression with them in general was that they were willing to do lots of things that did not "conventionally" make sense at their size, and those things paid off. The internship program, for example, was relatively large in comparison to the size of the company at the time (≈50 interns?) and had lots of structure (events/talks/classes/group projects/etc) like you would expect from a big tech company, not from a 300-person firm.
They were also willing to build a lot of tools in-house like their own build system[1], their own code reviews system[2], etc. Most people would see this as wasteful NIH but I'm convinced it was a net benefit for them—they managed to be so productive in an absolute sense and especially on a per-engineer basis because they were willing to build so much themselves, not despite it. I'm sure the same thing applied to their recruiting efforts.
The biggest thing I took away from my internship was how much conventional wisdom in the software world was not necessary or true.
[1]: First Jenga, now Dune
[2]: Here's a neat talk on how they do code review at Jane Street: https://www.janestreet.com/tech-talks/janestreet-code-review...
ethagnawl|1 year ago
Moral qualms aside, it must be a fascinating place to work.
LudwigNagasena|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
neilv|1 year ago
When I first heard of Jane Street, it sounded like Yaron Minsky was going around to MIT and such, high-touch, trying to hire just a few people. And later, things like this blog: https://blog.janestreet.com/author/yminsky/
The only negative thing I recall hearing is Jane Street alumni responsible for the infamous FTX and Alameda Research. I don't know whether the individuals were already fully into hopped-up sociopathic/narcissistic thinking in college, or whether their internship and employment experience contributed.
brightball|1 year ago
jddj|1 year ago
collegeburner|1 year ago
the bigger the vol, the more imma do
drgiggles|1 year ago
unstruktured|1 year ago
gosub100|1 year ago
lysecret|1 year ago
999900000999|1 year ago
Is learning C++ a must?
Smaug123|1 year ago
> About 80 per cent of the company's capital comes from employee equity, which has swelled to $21.3bn at the end of 2023
o.O
llm_trw|1 year ago
I'd be interested to see if the Pareto distribution holds here as well, namely that 1% of employees (26) hold half the wealth ($10b).
paxys|1 year ago
> The real money is at the top. The bond prospectus reveals that Jane Street has 40 “equity unit holders on a full-time basis and in good standing”, with an average tenure of 16 years. Among those there will be at least a handful of billionaires, even if no Jane Streeter appears on any rich lists.
Sounds like any other partnership. A few people at the top are providing the equity and getting a profit share, and the thousands under them are getting salaries.
bogtog|1 year ago
klelatti|1 year ago
> A good mate who runs and wrecks expensive cars for hobby once reminded me that course plotting (i.e. research) and braking (i.e. risk management) are the two sine qua non contributors to a successful race.
Along with a reminder that disasters happen when businesses forget this (Boeing!)
keyle|1 year ago
Meanwhile I'd love to know what their edge is... It's probably more than OCaml, although... ;)
bko|1 year ago
UK-Al05|1 year ago
If you want to hire the best and willing to pay that is no longer a concern
sgt|1 year ago
geodel|1 year ago
cess11|1 year ago
anonyfox|1 year ago
mrweasel|1 year ago
Yes, Jane Street uses OCaml, they have no reason to stop using OCaml, but may very well have been just as successful using another language. It's hard to tell, when we don't know the full circumstances of why they went with OCaml initially.
yodsanklai|1 year ago
coldtea|1 year ago
The paradox being: developer familiar with programming languages of level of power N doesn't recognize that languages of level N+ are better (more powerful expressively), only that N- are lesser.
DrBazza|1 year ago
These days, starting or running a financial business with less popular languages is, well, less popular.
yen223|1 year ago
citizen_friend|1 year ago
jedberg|1 year ago
And one of the answers was Jane St. Apparently they produce great engineers.
charlie0|1 year ago
udev4096|1 year ago
carlsborg|1 year ago
padjo|1 year ago
sporeray|1 year ago
roland35|1 year ago
pityJuke|1 year ago
EMM_386|1 year ago
Yes, I suppose this is all something to get all starry-eyed over, Jane Street encroaching on Citadel Securities, the two of whom control 30% of the US equity market volume.
I see it another way. I see people's hard earned money being siphoned by enormous financially-engineered vacuums, never to be seen again. And not just in the US, globally. This won't stop at 30% of the US equity market. It won't stop until the music stops and the last chair breaks. Which may or may not be soon. It will certainly be coming at some point.
Five times the London Stock Exchange’s entire trading volumes in 2023 in just your ETF arm? Sure ... this sounds like reasonable growth ...
> This is why some people argue that APs like Jane Street have become systemically important.
Oh, you don't say!
> About 80 per cent of the company’s capital comes from employee equity
That's adorable. They're like a little mom-and-pop shop ... except not anything like that.
pas|1 year ago
can you expand on this? I have zero idea of what Jane street actually does and how they actually make money. (someone wrote that they have ~450 traders. trading what? equity? stocks? dark pools? PE? are they market makers? are they offering services to institution types?)
also what does "people's hard earned money" mean? you mean that Jane Street takes away their 401k or ... ?
zie|1 year ago
We could essentially close them down if we moved all trading to say 1 hour a day.
Though most retail traders are upset they can only trade 7.5hrs a day, they want to trade 24/7 instead. They seem to WANT the liquidity and are apparently willing to pay for it.
Me, I'm fine with trading for only an hour a day, but I get not everyone is as lackadaisical as me.
Unless you have a better mouse trap to solve the liquidity problem, this is the best we have for now.
andrepd|1 year ago
hackerlight|1 year ago
clusterhacks|1 year ago
alchemist1e9|1 year ago
Envious bullshit! The reason they are so profitable is that believe it or not they are replacing earlier operators who were less efficient and taking more transactions costs out of the system before. To be anti-Jane Street is the same as being pro-Big Bank of the past, that was taking more money out of the economy doing a worse job!
Unless you know the history of global financial markets and lived it then you don’t understand. For example in the late 80s the CBOT treasury bond bit had over 1000 traders in that pit. They were all making money and quite a few a huge amount. And there was many more people supporting those traders of the floor. That was just a single futures bond contract! With Jane Street we have 2,631 employees doing the equivalent job globally and for less total cost of at least 80,000 employees in late 80s.
The profits per employee are higher obviously but that’s the effect of technology and productivity but the total price being charged to the economy as a whole is much lower. This trend will continue and I would not be surprised in 10 years that a company of 200 people will provide the entire function of those 2600 today, and probably the profits per employee will be $10M per person. But that’s what we want, is a good thing not bad, portraying otherwise is just Envy.
ur-whale|1 year ago
Which means they're rapidly coming to a position which will easily allow them to game the system (what used to be known as "cornering the market").
I even wonder if their system has already learned cornering by itself via stochastic gradient descent.
Galanwe|1 year ago
These are flows, not ownership.
Also, taking Citadel as an example, a vast portion of these flows are not their own, but rather thirs parties offloading their flows to them, so they have the underlying best execution guarantee to provide.
An other way to look at it is that investors are moving away from traditional brokers to execute their flows, because these HFT firms have become so good. So instead, investors offload their flows to HFTs acting as DMM instead.
neonate|1 year ago
djaouen|1 year ago
taneq|1 year ago
belinder|1 year ago
spatulon|1 year ago
infecto|1 year ago
flipbrad|1 year ago
llm_trw|1 year ago
John23832|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
kqr|1 year ago
dangoodmanUT|1 year ago
wuj|1 year ago
Their effort definitely paid off though. Quants like JS, Citadel, or Jump hire some of the brightest students from Berkeley and other top CS schools.
peterhadlaw|1 year ago
strikelaserclaw|1 year ago
B) if you have work experience, they filter on where you worked because the average google engineer / HFT engineer is probably better than your average engineer who works at missouri national bank.
C) if you've done something great that everyone knows about (like being the author of popular libraries, inventing tools that people use), then you can most likely bypass filters A and B if you can get in touch with a human recruiter (shouldn't be too hard).
For prestigious smaller companies which gets a lot of applicants, there is no easy way to reduce the pool without doing A and B. It is unfair and what college you go to might depend on circumstances beyond your control but if you have high ability regardless of what school you went to, you would eventually do B or C and get into the prestigious company.
If you don't have high ability and will never do either B or C, then they did the right thing filtering out your resume.
In the real world, it doesn't make sense for a company to discriminate against a candidate with higher ability just because they went to the wrong school (unless the company makes money from appearances like law firms, consulting firms or is corrupt and entrenched).
SkipperCat|1 year ago
That being said, if you went to a community college but also had 10+ years experience at one of their competitors (eg: DE Shaw, 2Sig, Citadel, etc), you'd almost be guaranteed an interview. But once again, thats another very small set of applicants.
pasc1878|1 year ago
they get many applicants for a job. So you have to filter those applications. One way is to recruit from known places where they have already got people from as they know it worked. Typically those universities also filtered on how good you were and so the average quality is higher from those.
Obviously there will be exceptions but not work spending time to find them. Recruitment costs a lot in time and money.
55555|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
kettleballroll|1 year ago
gadders|1 year ago
You can't claim to have diversity if everyone did the same courses in the same schools.
ecshafer|1 year ago
justsocrateasin|1 year ago
tourist2d|1 year ago
pquki4|1 year ago
mschuster91|1 year ago
That's a lot of money for someone who is essentially a middle-man. What a grift, about 13 dollars for each average American lost out to them a quarter.
Majromax|1 year ago
Second, it's not at all obvious that market-making is a zero-sum game, where profits to the market maker are "lost out" to someone else. Market-making profits from the bid/ask spread, but a new market maker tends to reduce that spread. Ordinary people tend to invest as price-takers, and thus they benefit from a reduced bid/ask spread.
paxys|1 year ago
> We operate as a functionally-organized structure consisting of various management and risk committees. Each committee is responsible for directing the overall strategy of the firm and for emphasizing the importance of risk management to our operations. Each of our trading desks and business units is run by equity unit holders who take an active role in managing our day-to-day operations [...]. Our management structure allows for effective cross-departmental communication [...].
Yes, that org structure full of hierarchical business units with distinct responsibilities and committees and subcommittees and overseers and risk management totally screams "anarchy"...
CharlieDigital|1 year ago
JackFr|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
fxd123|1 year ago
[deleted]
mayguo|1 year ago
[deleted]
chronic830021|1 year ago
> Average TC of 900K
> Several unranked billionaires
it makes even OpenAI / Meta ML SWEs look underpaid
SkipperCat|1 year ago
SWE who have deep subject matter experience are super valuable to these firms. Folks who understand how to write low latency code, FPGA work and other stuff like that. But the real money is in figuring how "how and what" to trade. Once that's done, the SWEs can bang out the code.
yodsanklai|1 year ago
paxys|1 year ago
hendzen|1 year ago
Tether made 4.5bn net income in Q1 2024 w/ probably <50 employees.
actionfromafar|1 year ago
blackhawkC17|1 year ago