Pros
Compensation is strong, and the company presents itself well during the interview process. People may get broad exposure early because roles are loosely defined.
Cons
Far less stable than it appears from the outside. In a short period of time, there were four major pivots in business direction, and these were not small changes. The focus seemed to shift repeatedly between consumer, institutional, U.S., overseas, and general uncertainty. That made it hard to understand what the company was actually building or how anyone could succeed when priorities kept changing. Turnover was also noticeable. People seemed to come and go quickly, and public-facing information did not always reflect that right away. Combined with the constant pivots, it created an environment that felt unclear, reactive, and unstable. The company may look polished from the outside, but the day-to-day reality felt very different. Candidates should ask direct questions about turnover, role stability, strategy changes, and actual expectations around remote work and office presence before accepting an offer. Taken together, it did not feel like a company that treated people as a long-term investment.