Offchain Labs co-founder Steven Goldfeder and Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko exchanged competing views on Sept. 6 over why Robinhood built its blockchain using Arbitrum technology instead of operating applications directly on Solana. Summary Offchain Labs co-founder Steven Goldfeder said Robinhood retains roughly 90% of net chain revenue generated. Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko argued Robinhood could instead monetize users through application-level fees directly itself. Robinhood Chain routes 10% of net protocol revenue to the broader Arbitrum ecosystem under agreements. Eight percentage points go to Arbitrum DAO, while two support its developer guild funding program. Robinhood Chain recorded $6.04 million daily fees, retaining approximately $5.44 million after costs and sharing. Goldfeder argued that Robinhood can retain roughly 90% of its chain revenue under the Arbitrum Expansion Program. A Solana-based application would pay network fees without receiving the underlying chain’s revenue, he said. “Robinhood chose Arbitrum so they could be a landlord and not a tenant,” Goldfeder wrote. His comment responded to Yakovenko’s position that Robinhood could subsidize Solana transaction fees while charging users through its own application. The debate followed a sharp rise in Robinhood Chain activity. The network recently collected $6.04 million in daily transaction fees and retained about $5.44 million after expenses and its Arbitrum revenue-sharing obligation. I have a ton of respect for @toly but this is a ridiculous take. On Arbitrum, Robinhood keeps 90% of gas fees. On Solana they would retain 0 and any gas fees they subsidized would come out of pocket. Robinhood chose Arbitrum so they could be a landlord and not a tenant. https://t.co/vWjBtn9PYh— Steven Goldfeder (@sgoldfed) September 5, 2026 Robinhood keeps 90% of net revenue, not gross fees Goldfeder’s 90% figure reflects the Arbitrum Expansion Program’s share of net protocol revenue. It should not be interpreted as Robinhood automatically retaining 90% of every gross fee paid by users. Under the program, Robinhood Chain sends 10% of its net protocol revenue to the Arbitrum ecosystem. Eight percentage points go to the Arbitrum DAO treasury, while two percentage points fund the Arbitrum Developer Guild. Net revenue is calculated after relevant network expenses, including the cost of posting transaction data to Ethereum. Robinhood’s actual retained amount therefore depends on gross transaction fees, Ethereum data costs, infrastructure expenses and the Arbitrum payment. The arrangement has already produced measurable results. Robinhood Chain collected a record $6.04 million in transaction fees during its latest 24-hour reporting period and retained approximately $5.44 million. The figures show the network keeping about 90% after associated costs and allocations. The network also generated $20.33 million in revenue over seven days. Maintaining that rate for a full year would produce approximately $1.06 billion, but such annualization is only a projection based on a brief period of unusually high activity. The latest Robinhood Chain fee record followed rapid growth in memecoin trading, token launches and decentralized exchange volume. GMGN, Pons and Uniswap accounted for much of the application activity. Yakovenko says applications can collect fees on Solana Yakovenko’s argument focuses on the application layer. Robinhood could deploy its services on Solana, subsidize transaction costs and charge customers through its interface, avoiding the expense of operating a separate Layer 2 network. This approach could work for transactions initiated through Robinhood’s application. Brokerages can charge commissions, spreads, subscription fees or service fees without controlling the blockchain underneath their products. Goldfeder countered that this model would not capture value from activity occurring outside Robinhood’s interface. Third-party wallets, trading bots, decentralized exchanges and token launchpads can interact directly with blockchain contracts. Robinhood would pay to subsidize transactions initiated by its customers on Solana but would receive none of the network fees produced by independent users. Solana validators and stakers would receive those fees instead. On Robinhood Chain, the company operates the network’s sequencing infrastructure. This allows it to collect transaction fees from activity across the chain, including transactions that bypass Robinhood’s front end. Recent data supports Goldfeder’s point about outside activity. Memecoin launchpad Pons and trading platform GMGN have become large contributors to Robinhood Chain’s traffic. Many transactions generated by those applications do not originate through Robinhood’s brokerage interface. The economic distinction is therefore broader than the cost of individual transactions. Yakovenko’s model lets Robinhood monetize its customers at the application level. Goldfeder’s model lets Robinhood capture revenue generated across an entire network. Robinhood Chain still pays Ethereum and Arbitrum Robinhood does not retain all the value generated by its blockchain. Robinhood Chain is an Ethereum Layer 2 built using Arbitrum Orbit, rather than an independent Layer 1. The network uses ETH as its native gas token and posts transaction data to Ethereum using blobs, according to Robinhood’s documentation. Each transaction includes an execution component and a data-availability component. The L2 execution fee covers computation performed on Robinhood Chain. The L1 data fee pays for publishing transaction information to Ethereum. Both components are bundled into the amount presented to users. Robinhood also pays the Arbitrum ecosystem’s 10% share of net protocol revenue. Consequently, the “landlord” description refers to Robinhood’s control over its own chain and sequencer, not complete independence from outside infrastructure. As an earlier examination of the revenue-sharing arrangement reported, Robinhood received a branded network, EVM compatibility, existing Ethereum tools and technical support in exchange for part of its net revenue. Building a new Layer 1 could theoretically allow Robinhood to retain more revenue. It would also require the company to develop and maintain its own execution, consensus, bridging and security infrastructure. Using Solana would remove the need to operate those components. However, Robinhood would become an application on infrastructure it did not control and would not collect the network’s transaction fees. Gas subsidies complicate the revenue comparison Robinhood launched its chain with a 90-day gas subsidy for transactions conducted through Robinhood Wallet. The subsidy is scheduled to expire on Sept. 29. The promotion means eligible wallet users do not directly pay gas during the subsidy period. Robinhood covers those costs. However, the subsidy does not necessarily cover every transaction conducted by independent applications and wallets across the network. That distinction is central to the founders’ debate. Goldfeder argued that much of Robinhood Chain’s activity now occurs beyond the Robinhood front end. The company can collect fees from those transactions because it operates the underlying chain. Robinhood Chain’s activity increased rapidly during the subsidy. Its daily decentralized exchange volume recently reached approximately $1.71 billion, while total value locked in native protocols stood near $1.17 billion. The network has also exceeded Solana in daily chain revenue during some reporting periods. However, direct comparisons require caution because the networks have different cost structures, subsidies, fee markets and validator arrangements. The Robinhood Chain and Solana comparison identified the subsidy’s expiration as a major test. User activity could fall when customers begin paying gas, or Robinhood could extend or restructure the program. The fee debate will become clearer after Sept. 29 The first major test arrives when the gas subsidy expires. Post-subsidy data will show how many Robinhood Wallet users continue transacting when they must pay their own network costs. It will also show whether independent activity from Pons, GMGN, Uniswap and other applications remains strong. These applications have contributed heavily to the network’s recent fee growth. A detailed onchain investigation by Bitquery found that Robinhood Chain’s gas price increased roughly 25-fold within 11 days. The report attributed much of the additional demand to a limited group of heavily active wallets. The concentration creates uncertainty over whether current fee revenue is sustainable. A decline in activity from several large addresses could reduce transaction fees even if total user numbers continue rising. Robinhood has not publicly announced whether it will extend the subsidy beyond Sept. 29. It also has not disclosed how network revenue will appear in its financial reporting. There was no verified movement in HOOD, SOL, ETH or ARB directly attributable to the founders’ exchange. Linking broader market fluctuations to their comments without additional evidence would be speculative. The commercial question will remain whether owning a Layer 2 produces more value than deploying an application on an existing Layer 1. Robinhood Chain’s first unsubsidized operating period will provide the clearest evidence.
