Arbitrum Solana Founders Debate Robinhood Chain Revenue Models
Steven Goldfeder and Toly compare fee retention and peripheral revenue under Arbitrum versus Solana architectures for Robinhood Chain.
Steven Goldfeder stated that Robinhood selected Arbitrum so the project could act as landlord rather than tenant, retaining roughly 90 percent of gas revenue under the chosen architecture.
Toly countered that a 10 percent revenue share paid to Arbitrum would already exceed four times Solana's on-chain fees, which would allow lower user gas costs if the chain ran on Solana instead.
Revenue capture differences
Goldfeder added that a large share of on-chain activity occurs outside Robinhood's front end, so a tenancy model would leave that peripheral revenue on the table.
Toly replied that Robinhood could still collect fees at the application layer while relying on a lower-cost base network for settlement.
Open questions
No direct confirmation or filing from Robinhood has been cited on the evaluation or final choice of chain.