The hot take right now: Solana is way cheaper, so Robinhood “should’ve” built there. Anatoly Yakovenko even ran the math: the 10% revenue share Robinhood pays Arbitrum could cover Solana fees several times over and still leave room to subsidize users.

But Steven Goldfeder’s reply hits a different angle: on Arbitrum Orbit, Robinhood keeps roughly 90% of sequencer revenue and only sends 10% back to the Arbitrum ecosystem (8% to the DAO treasury, 2% to the Developer Guild). On Solana, those same fees go to validators; Robinhood would retain none of the base-layer fees and would have to subsidize every user out of pocket if it wanted gasless UX.

In Goldfeder’s words: “Robinhood chose Arbitrum so they could be a landlord and not a tenant.” In practice, that means controlling the sequencer, setting the fee model, and capturing most of the economics from activity on their own chain—even when users aren’t trading directly inside Robinhood’s app.

So this isn’t really about “which chain has lower gas.” It’s about which design lets a platform extract and keep value from its own users at scale.

submitted by /u/GlobalGweiPro [link] [comments]r/CryptoCurrencyRead More

You might also be interested in reading Echo Protocol pauses bridge after attacker mints $76M eBTC.