your comment is utter nonsense. quant funds are defined by the reliance on (i suppose, good) algorithms, not computers - literally everybody trades with computers. the number of trades you make doesn&#x27;t determine alpha, which is a measure of relative performance given a particular risk level (beta). there is no statistical fact to any of that, and certainly no sense to &#x27;alpha becoming beta.&#x27; there is no a priori reason that their strategies must or will become public (the fear of replication risk is a common bogeyman but is already priced in). everyone needs to keep innovating in their strategies, but mostly because markets change.<p>the only half-true statement you made was about scalability. like, theoretically every strategy has a limit to its effectiveness and i guess you can argue that algo-based trading funds <i>should</i> be limited in size and scope. but compare that to seriously unscalable fields such as venture capital, where the constraints are in lack of investment targets, need for GP&#x27;s to consult&#x2F;manage, domain expertise more important for companies w&#x2F;o sec-standard accounting, covenants blocking investments in previously funded companies - in essence, high human capital costs. implementing an extra algo strategy is much less human-intensive, which might suggest easier scaling (though nowhere near mutual funds, etc)