Arbitrum co-founder defends Robinhood charging 90% fee

Offchain Labs co-founder and Solana co-founder debate Robinhood chain choice

On September 6, Offchain Labs co-founder Steven Goldfeder and Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko exchanged different views on why Robinhood chose to build its blockchain based on Arbitrum technology rather than running applications directly on Solana.

Differences in income distribution models

Goldfeder pointed out that under the Robinhood Chain model, Robinhood retains about 90% of its net chain revenue. In contrast, Yakovenko believes Robinhood could have been monetized by charging users directly for the application layer without having to own the underlying chain.

Under the agreement, Robinhood Chain allocates 10% of its net network protocol revenue to the broader Arbitrum ecosystem. Eight percentage points go to the Arbitrum DAO treasury, and the other two percentage points go to support its Developer Guild funding program. Data shows that Robinhood Chain's daily fee income is US$6.04 million, and after deducting costs and shares, the company retains approximately US$5.44 million.

Goldfeder emphasized that through the Arbitrum Expansion Program, Robinhood was able to retain the vast majority of chain revenue. He pointed out that if applications are developed based on Solana, the company will only pay for the network and will not be able to get a return on revenue from the underlying chain. "Robinhood chose Arbitrum to become a 'landlord' rather than a 'tenant.' Goldfeder wrote. The comment echoed Yakovenko's view that Robinhood could make money by subsidizing Solana's transaction fees and charging for its own apps.

The economic logic behind the data

The controversy came after a surge in Robinhood Chain activity. The network recently collected $6.04 million in transaction fees in a single day and retained approximately $5.44 million after deducting expenses and its revenue-sharing obligations to Arbitrum.

I have great respect for @toly, but this is a ridiculous view. On Arbitrum, Robinhood retains 90% of the fee; on Solana, they will retain 0% and any subsidy fee will have to be paid out of pocket. Robinhood chose Arbitrum to become a landlord rather than a tenant.
-- Steven Goldfeder (@sgoldfed) September 5, 2026

It needs to be clarified that the 90% ratio mentioned by Goldfeder refers to the share of net network protocol revenue in the Arbitrum extension plan. This does not mean that Robinhood will automatically retain 90% of each total fee paid by users. Under the plan, Robinhood Chain sends 10% of its network protocol net revenue to the Arbitrum ecosystem. Net income is calculated after deducting relevant network fees, including the cost of publishing transaction data to Ethereum. Therefore, the amount Robinhood actually retains depends on total transaction fees, Ethereum data costs, infrastructure expenditures, and fees paid to Arbitrum.

This arrangement has produced measurable results. During its most recent 24-hour reporting period, Robinhood Chain set a record transaction fee of $6.04 million and retained approximately $5.44 million. These numbers show that after correlating costs and allocations, the network retains about 90% of its revenue. In addition, the network generated $20.33 million in revenue in seven days. Although it is estimated at approximately US$1.06 billion for the full year at this rate, this is only based on a short period of high activity.

Value capture between the application layer and the network layer

Yakovenko's argument focuses on the application layer. He believes Robinhood can deploy services on Solana, subsidize transaction costs and charge customers through its interface, thereby avoiding the overhead of operating a stand-alone Layer 2 network. This approach is feasible for transactions initiated through the Robinhood application. Brokers can monetize through commissions, spreads, subscription fees or service fees without having to control the blockchain behind their product design.

However, Goldfeder counters that this model cannot capture the value of activities outside the Robinhood interface. Third-party wallets, trading robots, decentralized exchanges (DEX) and token launch platforms can interact directly with blockchain contracts. On Solana, Robinhood would have to pay subsidy fees for transactions initiated by its customers, but would not be able to receive network fees incurred by independent users because these fees would be received by Solana validators and pledgers.

On Robinhood Chain, the company operates the sequencing infrastructure of the network. This allows it to collect transaction fees for activities across the chain, including transactions that bypass Robinhood's front-end. The latest data shows that Memecoin launch platform Pons and trading platform GMGN have become major contributors to Robinhood Chain traffic. Many of the transactions generated by these apps do not originate from Robinhood's broker interface.

Therefore, the economic difference is not just the cost of a single transaction. Yakovenko's model allows Robinhood to monetize its customers at the application level; Goldfeder's model allows Robinhood to capture revenue generated throughout the network.

Robinhood Chain still has to pay Ethereum and Arbitrum fees

Robinhood does not retain all the value generated by its blockchain. Robinhood Chain is an Ethereum Layer 2 built based on Arbitrum Orbit, rather than a stand-alone Layer 1. According to Robinhood's documents, the network uses ETH as a native Gas token and uses a Blob structure to publish transaction data to Ethereum. Each transaction includes an execution component and a data availability component.

The L2 execution fee covers calculations performed on Robinhood Chain, and the L1 data fee is used to publish transaction information to Ethereum. Both components are packaged in the cost shown to users. In addition, Robinhood pays a 10% share of net agreement revenue from the Arbitrum ecosystem. Thus, the description of "landlord" refers to Robinhood's control over its own chain and sorters, rather than complete independence from external infrastructure.

As a previous review of revenue-sharing arrangements reported, Robinhood traded part of its net income in exchange for brand network, EVM compatibility, existing Ethereum tools and technical support. In theory, building a new Layer 1 might allow Robinhood to retain more revenue, but it would also require the company to develop and maintain its own execution, consensus, bridging and security infrastructure. Using Solana eliminates the need to operate these components, but Robinhood will become an application on underlying facilities it does not control and will not collect transaction fees for the network.

Gas subsidy complicates revenue

Robinhood introduced a 90-day Gas subsidy when it went online, which applies to transactions made through Robinhood Wallet. The subsidy is scheduled to expire on September 29. During this period, eligible wallet users will not be required to pay Gas fees directly, and Robinhood will bear these costs. However, subsidies do not necessarily cover every transaction made by independent apps and wallets on the network.

This difference was at the heart of the debate between the two founders. Goldfeder pointed out that most of Robinhood Chain's activity now takes place outside of the Robinhood front end. Because the company runs the underlying chain, it can collect fees from these transactions. During the subsidy period, Robinhood Chain's activity increased rapidly, with its single-day decentralized transaction volume recently reaching approximately US$1.71 billion, and the total lock-in value in the native agreement was close to US$1.17 billion.

In some reporting periods, the network's daily chain revenue even exceeded Solana. However, because the two networks have different cost structures, subsidies, fee markets, and verifier arrangements, direct comparisons require caution.

The cost debate after September 29 will be clearer

The first major test will come when the Gas subsidy expires. The subsidized data will show how many Robinhood Wallet users continue to trade when customers have to pay their own network costs. It will also show whether independent activity from Pons, GMGN, Uniswap and other apps remains strong. These applications have contributed significantly to the recent cost growth of the network.

A detailed online survey by Bitquery showed that Robinhood Chain's Gas price increased approximately 25 times in 11 days. The report attributed most of the additional demand to a highly active set of addresses. This concentration creates uncertainty about the sustainability of current expense revenue. Even if the total number of users continues to rise, reduced activity at several large addresses could lead to lower transaction fees.

Robinhood has not publicly announced whether it will extend the subsidy after September 29, nor has it disclosed how network revenue will be reflected in its financial report. There were no direct attributable fluctuations in HOOD, SOL, ETH or ARB regarding founder remarks. Without additional evidence, linking broader market fluctuations to their comments would be speculative.

The business question will still boil down to whether owning Layer 2 provides more value than deploying applications on existing Layer 1. Robinhood Chain's first period of unsubsidized operations will provide the clearest evidence yet.