Pros
Tech-focused, legitimately innovative, and--from what I could tell--a stable of talented staff, many of whom desire professional growth and the chance to create a better product and company.
Cons
Let's start at the top: the executive leadership is a teeming mass of testosterone-drunk Good Ol' Boys straight out of a Federalist Society, hyper-capitalist, Ayn Rand fever dream--several conference rooms at HQ in San Diego are named for Barry Goldwater (enjoy, employees of color!), Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, and the aforementioned "Atlas Shrugged" author. Only two women currently occupy the C-suite (both White), and that's only due to a recent promotion of the head of HR to EVP. CEO Greg Garrabrants, though genuinely smart and affable, is a future failed GOP congressional candidate straight out of Central Casting, and makes little to no effort in hiding it. The individual Business Units attempt (usually through middle management) to prop up the charade of collaboration, but ultimately make very little secret of how much they can't stand each other, particularly between the Compliance/Audit and Production groups. You'll hear a lot about "self-governance" and "making an impact" when in fact the expectation is excessive work hours for below-market pay (unless, of course, you have managed to work your way to (a) VP or higher, and (b) your Executive's good graces--then your pay is exorbitantly, comically outsized compared to your peers), and little chance of real career growth. The culture is cutthroat, and the incentives paltry. Management reflexively pushes the semi-annual (discretionary) bonuses of 50% cash and 50% restricted stock unit awards, but turnover is so pervasive that the three-year vesting schedule often renders the incentive meaningless.