When Robinhood launched its Robinhood Chain on top of the Arbitrum tech stack as a second-layer scaling solution for Ethereum, it resembled an "on-chain real estate" business: Offchain Labs co-founder Steven Goldfeder described this move as "being a landlord, not a tenant," emphasizing that under this architecture, Robinhood could retain about 90% of on-chain gas/transaction fee revenue, only needing to pay around 10% as a share; Solana co-founder Toly immediately countered in public, pointing out that this 10% income share alone could cover transaction fees on the Solana chain that are about four times higher. To him, this calculation looks unfavorable from a cost-efficiency perspective. The exchange between the two co-founders tore apart what originally seemed like a somewhat technical choice into a route competition between "modular L2 (shared security, retained revenue)" and "standalone high-performance public chains (extremely low fees)," also elevating the narrative of whether Robinhood was buying a piece of land for itself or working for others. In the light of this debate and the developments of the Robinhood Chain, market sentiment quickly tilted towards the Arbitrum narrative, with the ARB token recently seeing a single-day increase of about 48.8%, priced at approximately $0.197, regarded as one of the leading assets in the altcoin sector, once driving some DeFi tokens to rally up; Arbitrum ecosystem-related projects on the airdrop radar saw a surge in interest, becoming a vital entry point for many users tracking this lead. However, the research brief also cautioned that there is still a lack of on-chain data such as TVL (Total Value Locked), daily trading volume, and further disclosure from Robinhood about the details of "retaining 90% gas fees" and "10% revenue sharing," indicating that the rise of ARB and related tokens is more a matter of market interpretation rather than being data-supported causation. This debate of "landlord or tenant" thus becomes a long-term observational mainline for airdrop radar users to understand institutional on-chain layouts and L2 opportunity boundaries.

Landlord Economics and 90% Fees

If we strip the previous paragraph of its rhetoric and only look at the cash flow, it's easy to understand what Goldfeder refers to when he talks about "being a landlord, not a tenant"—it's not a posture but a redefinition of the revenue distribution curve. Choosing to build Robinhood Chain on the Arbitrum tech stack means Robinhood is no longer just a "tenant" on a public chain, passively accepting the fees and rules of the underlying network, but is instead managing its own cash flow of on-chain transaction fees through a second-layer network it owns. The numbers that Goldfeder provided during public discussions indicated that under this framework, Robinhood could retain about 90% of the on-chain gas/transaction fee revenue, only needing to pay around 10% as revenue to parties related to Arbitrum, turning "rent" into a platform commission, with the role shifting from renter to landlord.

This design relies on a realistic premise: Robinhood Chain is still built on the Arbitrum tech stack, operating as a second-layer solution anchored on Ethereum, where security and liquidity are provided by Ethereum, the execution environment is managed by Arbitrum modules, whilst the transaction fee revenue rights are delegated to the application side. In the narrative of traditional public chains, the underlying network is often the largest "landlord," with ecological applications scrambling for its issued tokens and subsidies; however, in the model of Robinhood Chain, the chain itself is an extension of Robinhood's business, with the vast majority of transaction fees seen as its own revenue, only paying a small portion of "infrastructure sharing" to Arbitrum at the system level. For a brokerage firm accustomed to earning from commissions, spreads, and interest income structures, this effectively creates an additional on-chain revenue channel without sacrificing Ethereum's safety and liquidity, keeping the portion of "blood and sweat money" that would have gone to the underlying network on its balance sheet as much as possible.

From the perspective of the airdrop radar, this type of "landlord economics" is quietly rewriting the attractiveness curve of second-layer networks to traditional institutions: it’s no longer just about "cheaper on-chain transactions," but instead about "keeping about 90% of the transaction fee revenue for oneself while sharing security and liquidity." For the Arbitrum ecosystem, this model also adds a layer of imagination for projects that possess revenue distribution potential—not just who has higher throughput and lower fees, but who can design smoother paths for revenue rights distribution within a modular structure, allowing applications, potential token holders, and users to find their respective positions on the same cash flow. For airdrop radar users, Robinhood's choice has brought the issue of "being a landlord" to the forefront; whether more institutions will follow suit with similar second-layer structures and revenue sharing will become a critical observational variable for judging the long-term competitive landscape of the L2 track.

Solana's Counterattack: Fourfold Cost Question

After Goldfeder described Robinhood as “from tenant to landlord,” Solana co-founder Toly quickly provided a completely different method of calculation. He started from the costs of high-frequency trading and publicly stated that the 10% revenue share Robinhood pays to Arbitrum could itself cover transaction fees on the Solana chain that are about four times higher. In other words, in his view, Robinhood isn’t using a cheaper chain for facilitation and settlement; rather, it is utilizing a second-layer that takes a cut, stacking an extra layer of shared revenue structure on what could otherwise be pushed down to extremely low on-chain costs, which may not be the optimal solution for high-frequency players who thrive on trade frequency and transaction count.

This statement struck a nerve with the Arbitrum camp because it pointed directly to the different value propositions of the two approaches for traditional brokerage clients. Solana has always used high throughput and low fees as its core selling points, targeting roles that are extremely sensitive to latency and costs, such as market makers and quantitative teams—under this narrative, the chain itself resembles an "extremely aggressive pricing machine," with fees being simple and straightforward: pay per trade, the more you have, the cheaper it gets; while Arbitrum's modular L2 model emphasizes allowing institutions like Robinhood to retain approximately 90% of gas income, while taking about 10% as revenue share. In Goldfeder's rhetoric, it’s a story about "making landlords collect more rent," whereas in Toly's words, it translates into "an additional cost that accumulates per transaction."

Once the debate was brought to the surface, the question was no longer a technical route dispute but a bid for "who is better suited to carry traditional brokerage businesses." For users of the airdrop radar, Toly's "fourfold cost" remark caused sentiment that had leaned toward Arbitrum to waver: on one side is the L2 attempt like Robinhood Chain, pushing transaction fee revenues down to the application side; on the other side is the Solana camp, characterized as high-frequency friendly, attempting to attract the same group of institutional clients with extremely low per-transaction fees. In this tug of narrative, the focus on several projects within the Solana ecosystem on the airdrop radar noticeably heated up, as some users started to consider "which chain is more suitable for high-frequency, institution-friendly" as an important reference when filtering new projects, making this public clash concerning fourfold costs a mid- to long-term observation line for judging which technical route future airdrop opportunities will lean toward.

Arbitrum Heat Rising

Shifting the focus back from Solana to the Arbitrum camp, after Robinhood chose to build its second-layer solution based on the Arbitrum tech stack and faced off with Solana, the narrative scale clearly tilted towards Arbitrum in the short term. The research brief noted that the market interpreted the potential enhancement of Robinhood Chain's trading activity as a substantive benefit for the Arbitrum ecosystem, with the ARB token experiencing a single-day increase of about 48.8% reaching approximately $0.197, deemed one of the leaders in the altcoin sector for that day. During this same period, some DeFi tokens (like SUSHI) also witnessed a short-term spike, as traders quickly pieced together a storyline of "Robinhood aligning with Arbitrum—L2 modular route wins—related tokens' revenue rights revised" and began to place bets on it.

In this wave of sentiment, project cards related to the Arbitrum ecosystem on the airdrop radar saw a renewed rise in interest. Some users began viewing Robinhood Chain's on-chain layout as a sign of the Arbitrum ecosystem's overall value being re-evaluated, attempting to incorporate the label of "linked to the Arbitrum narrative" into their filtering criteria, feeling this might mean more traffic and potential distribution space later on. However, the research brief also clearly emphasized that there is currently a lack of specific on-chain data such as TVL, daily trading volume for Robinhood Chain, nor any direct evidence connecting Robinhood's trading activity with the increases in ARB and related tokens, suggesting that this linkage largely stays at the level of market interpretation. For airdrop radar users, a point of caution is that the rising heat of the Arbitrum ecosystem is more a case of sentiment and narrative being repriced at present, and does not automatically equate to increased certainty in airdrops. The true variable worth tracking long-term is whether this narrative can be consistently validated by subsequent on-chain data and project developments.

Is This Lead Worth It on Airdrop Radar?

For airdrop hunters, Robinhood's alignment with Arbitrum and its ensuing public debate with Solana does not automatically equate to a specific project “definitely issuing” airdrops. What truly changes is the priority on the radar screen: when a large internet finance platform chooses the modular L2 route, attempting to “be a landlord rather than a tenant,” the narrative for the entire Arbitrum track is reignited, while the Solana camp is compelled to counter with cost efficiency arguments, making "which ecosystems are better at attracting institutional traffic" a new dimension for selection rather than merely asking if a specific project has a token page open.

This change is most vividly reflected in the filters and project cards on the airdrop radar. Both Arbitrum and Solana are individually marked as mainstream public chain ecosystems; relevant projects are concentrated, and users can filter based on L2, public chain ecosystem, etc., keeping an eye on projects with a noticeable rise in interest within these two sectors, and, combined with status labels, discern who remains at the "early candidate" stage and who has already moved into a clearer participation path. With monitoring from AiCoin data on interest fluctuations, once certain projects progress from "ordinary lead" to "verification in process" or even further stages after the debate, it often indicates that project teams are beginning to release more substantial actions beyond narratives.

However, regarding the Robinhood Chain itself, what can rely upon is still largely narrative over data. The research brief has pointed out that this chain currently lacks key indicators such as TVL, daily trading volume, and there are no confirmations from Robinhood regarding details of "retaining about 90% gas fees" and "paying around 10% share to Arbitrum," and furthermore, the rise in ARB and related tokens lacks direct causal chain support from Robinhood's trading activity; this remains more of a market sentiment interpretation. Under such information structure, airdrop radar users should regard Robinhood Chain as a long-term observation clue for institutional adoption, using it to adjust their focus weights within the Arbitrum and Solana ecosystems, rather than viewing it as a locked-in short-term profit story.

Viewing On-chain Game from Robinhood's Perspective

By placing part of its off-chain brokerage business on top of the Arbitrum tech stack, Robinhood essentially answers the question of "Do I want to be a landlord or a tenant?" with a modular L2. Behind this choice lies the classic tension that CeFi institutions must confront: Should institutions like Robinhood prioritize obtaining on-chain gas revenues and rule-making power, or should they be more radical by minimizing user costs and fully committing to a "extremely low-fee" standalone high-performance public chain? Offchain Labs co-founder's remark of "being a landlord, not a tenant," alongside Solana co-founder's counter from the perspective of cost efficiency, brings this route contention to the forefront and also suggests that as more CeFi institutions go on-chain in the future, it will be challenging to avoid similar questions.

For Arbitrum, Robinhood Chain represents an opportunity to concretize "landlord economics" in modular L2: while inheriting Ethereum's security and liquidity, the L2 model also allows Robinhood to retain independent gas revenue distribution rights, with about 90% of transaction fee revenues staying with itself and only about 10% paid as a share to parties related to Arbitrum; for Solana, Toly's statement that this 10% can cover approximately four times the transaction costs on the Solana chain brings the narrative of "high performance, low cost" back to the forefront. For users of the airdrop radar, this debate seems more like a mid- to long-term clue for infrastructure and institutional adoption; tracking ongoing project financing progress, ecological expansion rhythms, and potential task paths will be essential in avoiding simplistically interpreting it as a quickly realizable short-term risk-free profit narrative given the lack of complete on-chain data and official clause details.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin On-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。