Somehow, in finance, the impression I always got was that the engineers/algorithm guys were always second fiddle to the traders, and the traders were an incredibly aggressive group of people with a mean competitive streak (part of it I'm sure was the subset of people I met).
That's true, but the VC-funded world is no different. There, engineers are third-class citizens, as shown in their equity slices. (Founders and executives are second-class; investors are first-class.)
If you're comparing working at a hedge fund to working in Google's R&D division, then you're right that the hedge-fund engineers are worse off in terms of status and, quite probably, job satisfaction. If you're comparing the hedge fund to 99% of software jobs, the former wins. Hedge funds are selective enough that they don't need "story points" and "backlog retrospective meetings" and all that "Agile" micromanagement that exists when you're not selective and the managers have no faith in the ability of the engineers to direct their own work.
Some traders are assholes; most are pretty nice people. It's no different from the spectrum you'd see among product managers, tech executives, or VCs. Some are dicks, some are nice, some are idiots and some are competent. It depends on which firm you pick.
Founders are not second class. They generally hold way more of the company than their investors unless the company has had a down round, raised a series B/C, or went public - and in either case the founders have a disproportionate amount of control and ownership compared to the opportunity cost.
They're second-class, except for celebrity founders who call themselves "serial entrepreneurs" and can regard fundraising as an afterthought.
Having 60% of one startup, and having to do all the work, is inferior to having 20% of ten startups, and having power but no responsibility to any single one of them. Founders have more power within their specific companies (if things are going well) but investors have the power that matters, because they're diversified and involved in a large number of things.
A partner at a VC will generally only vouch for one or two startups a year. They are responsible for allocating capital, not directing employees. Furthermore, the partner at a VC will generally not have anywhere close to 20% of ten startups (usually it's 15% to the fund). They have a draw off of the fund (which they have to raise) and they have a certain amount profit if the fund is successful.
I do agree with you that engineers (especially the first 4 hires) generally get the worst deal of all.
nah, not really true for my experiences. For general IT geeky introvertish people, traders are exactly on opposite side of personality spectrum.
99% jobs are worse than hedge fund jobs? again, simply not true
That's true, but the VC-funded world is no different. There, engineers are third-class citizens, as shown in their equity slices. (Founders and executives are second-class; investors are first-class.)
If you're comparing working at a hedge fund to working in Google's R&D division, then you're right that the hedge-fund engineers are worse off in terms of status and, quite probably, job satisfaction. If you're comparing the hedge fund to 99% of software jobs, the former wins. Hedge funds are selective enough that they don't need "story points" and "backlog retrospective meetings" and all that "Agile" micromanagement that exists when you're not selective and the managers have no faith in the ability of the engineers to direct their own work.
Some traders are assholes; most are pretty nice people. It's no different from the spectrum you'd see among product managers, tech executives, or VCs. Some are dicks, some are nice, some are idiots and some are competent. It depends on which firm you pick.