If you know you can quit and -- within a few months -- be earning a great living writing trading algorithms in C++ or reporting systems in Java, a startup is a much saner risk. This also applies to quants and physics majors: many smart folks are lured into the private sector, but many many more smart people can consider a Physics PhD because of the money they can make (if they need it).

That cuts both ways, though: it's too easy to bail at the first hint of trouble at a startup, which is why there are relatively few great startup stories out of NY.

I personally wish it were easier for physicists to spend just a few years in finance to find out whether they like it, and/or to save up some money.

NYC has an agency mindset which doesn't work in a startup environment. So you hire people from razorfish, digitas, r/ga, etc. but they're expecting the same 9-5 lifestyle and have a hard time adjusting.

My experience is that a lot of agency people have a lot of problems coping in environments without a lot of process, nor are they inclined to feel ownership.

There is no sense of equal quality when comparing the lifestyle of a startup to that of working at an agency (of which I have 10+ years experience working in). At an agency, there are people above you and people below you and despite whatever flaws in the process that the agency has, it at least has one.

Figure that most early stages are typically 3-4 people. Process isn't as important as this stage as getting stuff done and getting stuff out. In fact, an intricate involved process at this point would do more damage than good.

At 5-10 people, process starts becoming important, but that process must be devised amongst the people in the company. Most agency people we've had come work at Massify during this period had a hard time adjusting as we attempt to soothe the chaos. It takes a fairly rare blend of ambition and drive to succeed in a startup at this point.

And, btw, if you're handing out equity, they sure as shit better love it or they should really move on. They needn't love it as much as I do, nor do I expect that from them, but they better have some affection for it or they should hit the road. When things get grim, it's this certain love or passion for the product that carries you through.

I've also worked in companies of 3-4 people (including me) that had basic processes (source control, requirements management, etc), and the results were FAR better. We ended up spending MORE time doing our job, not less. We also spent a LOT less time cleaning up messes and wondering why we acquired 15 build errors every time we synced the code from source control.

Though I agree that a small group doesn't require a lot of process, chaos is counter productive.