Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Anchored Finance has launched tokenized versions of traditional stocks on Uniswap’s decentralized exchange, using the Arbitrum Layer-2 network as its primary venue. The deployment, which went live on August 24, brings 10 tokenized equities onto one of DeFi’s most liquid trading platforms, each backed 1:1 by shares held through US regulated brokers and custodians.

What Anchored built and how it works Anchored Finance first announced its plans on August 20, targeting a launch window of August 21 to 24. The team met that timeline, with tokens going live on the later end of the window after completing technical and liquidity preparations.

The tokenized stocks are issued as ERC-20 tokens. Liquidity routing runs through UniswapX, an order-routing protocol that aggregates liquidity sources to find optimal execution for traders. Settlements happen in USDC, and Anchored has also built on-chain issuance workflows, meaning the creation and redemption of tokenized shares follows a transparent, verifiable process.

The deployment isn’t limited to Arbitrum. Anchored simultaneously launched on Ethereum mainnet, Base, and Monad, spreading its tokenized equities across four networks.

The tokenized RWA wave keeps building Anchored’s approach leans on US custodial services to hold the underlying shares, creating a compliance framework where each on-chain token corresponds to a real share sitting in a regulated brokerage account.

What this means for tokenized equities Post-launch trading volume data for Anchored’s tokens hasn’t surfaced yet. A 1:1 backing model with regulated custody addresses the trust problem. USDC settlements remove friction. Multi-chain deployment across four networks increases surface area for discovery, and Uniswap integration means these tokens don’t need to build their own trading ecosystem from scratch.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Solana has announced that the ARB token is now available to trade on its network through Sunrise, expanding the options for ARB holders and traders. The move has drawn renewed attention to how trading fees and execution quality are compared across blockchains, especially amid ongoing disagreement between key industry figures.

Sunrise ARB listing sparks debate over fees and executionThe ARB token, which is native to the Arbitrum blockchain, can now be accessed and traded directly on Solana’s network via the third-party application Sunrise. Solana is promoting this listing by highlighting what it describes as tighter spreads and significantly lower fees for ARB trades compared to Arbitrum. These claims have intensified competition and discussion about transaction costs between rival blockchains.

Steven Goldfeder, CEO of Offchain Labs, which is the technology company behind Arbitrum, has responded to these comparisons by cautioning against drawing conclusions solely from outward fee structures. Goldfeder stressed that calculating true transaction costs should include protections against harmful trading behaviors such as frontrunning and various forms of maximal extractable value (MEV).

Goldfeder emphasized that comparing on-chain trading costs is not straightforward, as factors like protection against hidden execution costs and malicious trading practices can have a significant impact on users, beyond just network and liquidity provider fees.

Anatoly Yakovenko, cofounder of Solana, countered Goldfeder’s position by asserting that Arbitrum generally faces “worse spreads and higher fees” compared to Solana routes. Yakovenko cited figures suggesting a roughly tenfold difference in costs, though he clarified that these numbers represent his own assessment and not a guarantee for every ARB transaction on either network.

Trading costs on decentralized exchanges often include not just the base network fee, but also liquidity provider charges and price slippage. Solana documentation notes both base transaction fees and optional priority fees, which together contribute to the total spent by ARB traders. The absence of a standardized fee schedule makes it important for users to compare actual order execution results across platforms.

Founded in 2020, Solana is a high-speed, proof-of-stake blockchain claiming to offer fast settlement and low fees. Sunrise is an application that facilitates cross-chain asset listings and enables users to interact with tokens from multiple ecosystems within one interface.

Mini dictionary: Maximal extractable value (MEV) refers to the extra profit that can be made by miners or validators when they reorder or include certain transactions within a block, often at the expense of regular users by capturing arbitrage or frontrunning opportunities.

SOL price, volume jump as technical levels take focusThe news of ARB’s arrival via Sunrise comes as SOL, Solana’s native token, trades at $106.02, reflecting a 2.5% increase over a 24-hour period. SOL’s trading volume rose 63.8% in the same timeframe to $3.49 billion, though there is no direct evidence that the ARB listing was the catalyst for these changes in price and volume.

Recent technical analysis places immediate support level for SOL near $105, while overhead resistance has been identified at $107.37. Upside from $106.02 to the resistance would represent just over 1%. However, if the price falls below $104.94, the short-term recovery outlook could weaken.

Solana continues to see heightened activity, but interpreting a surge in trading volume requires caution, as increased turnover may signal greater trading but does not confirm new liquidity entering the $SOL market.

The $3.49 billion figure references SOL token trading activity, not necessarily total turnover for the Solana blockchain or the ARB token specifically. Higher trading volume reflects more frequent buying and selling but does not always indicate net capital inflows.

With immediate support and resistance levels tightly grouped, traders are watching closely for a potential breakout or further decline. Market participants are also waiting to see if ARB trading on Solana will attract sustained interest or impact long-term liquidity for either asset.

LevelValueCurrent SOL price$106.02Support$105.00Resistance$107.37Trading Volume (24h)$3.49 billionKey price risk level$104.94Overall, industry figures remain divided on the best way to measure trading costs, with Solana and Arbitrum advocates each defending their network’s approach. The debate has highlighted the complexity of comparing user experience and cost efficiency across blockchains as multi-chain asset access expands.

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.

Arbitrum (ARB) surged from approximately $0.08 in late August to nearly $0.20 in September, marking one of its largest rallies in 2025. This move represents an increase of more than 120% from its recent low. The latest daily trading session alone saw an almost 10% jump in ARB price.

Robinhood Chain delivers revenue surgeRobinhood Chain, a dedicated Arbitrum-based network created by the trading platform Robinhood, appeared to drive the latest momentum. Over a 24-hour period, Robinhood Chain generated more than $2 million in transaction revenue, and 10% of its net protocol revenue is redirected to the Arbitrum ecosystem. If activity remains consistent, Arbitrum’s share could translate into an estimated annualized income of $73 million.

In late August, Robinhood Chain’s gross revenue sharply increased from about $54,700 on August 22 to more than $1.08 million by August 30. During the same period, Arbitrum’s matching stake grew from roughly $5,400 to $108,000. Key metrics across the Arbitrum ecosystem also showed notable improvement.

Mini dictionary: Robinhood Chain, a blockchain developed as part of Robinhood’s expansion into decentralized finance (DeFi), leverages Arbitrum’s technology to offer users faster and cheaper transactions compared to Ethereum mainnet.

Arbitrum ecosystem demonstrates rapid growthThe Arbitrum Foundation reported that its networks handled 478 million transactions during the first half of 2025. Stablecoin transfers on Arbitrum networks exceeded a monthly average of $70 billion. In the same period, ArbitrumDAO, the project’s decentralized autonomous organization, earned $6.19 million. In July, which marked Robinhood Chain’s first full month on mainnet, license fees from the Expansion Program made up 35% of the DAO’s revenue.

MetricValueTransactions (H1 2025)478 millionMonthly stablecoin transfer volume$70 billionArbitrumDAO earnings (H1 2025)$6.19 millionExpansion Program share (July)35% of DAO revenueMarket sentiment and technical outlookIntense speculative activity has added further energy to the rally. Open interest in ARB futures contracts rose sharply during the initial breakout phase as traders increased their exposure through new long positions. Since August 31, open interest climbed by an estimated 30%, magnifying leverage in an already expanding spot market.

Currently, ARB trades near $0.195 on the daily chart after reaching an intraday peak close to $0.206. The Relative Strength Index (RSI) stands near 85, well above typical overbought thresholds. This overextension in technical indicators suggests the risk of a short-term correction despite strong fundamentals stemming from Robinhood Chain’s performance.

Presently, the rally is fundamentally supported by growth in Robinhood Chain, but the pace of ARB’s rise increases the possibility of a market correction as technical factors indicate overbought conditions.

The 200-day moving average sits near $0.119, highlighting ARB’s significant overperformance relative to its long-term trend. Maintained support at the $0.17–$0.18 range could sustain the breakout structure. However, a breakdown below this zone may trigger a deeper retracement after the notable 120% climb.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.

Robinhood Chain stopped producing new blocks on Friday, leaving transactions stalled for at least 14 minutes. Robinhood has disclosed neither the cause of the outage nor an estimated recovery time.

The network normally settles a block every tenth of a second. At that pace, a 14-minute stall accounts for roughly 8,400 blocks that were never produced.

Robinhood Chain network appears to have experienced an outage. Source: Block ExplorerWhat the Explorer ShowedThe chain’s tip sat several minutes old while the network kept accepting nothing new. Pending transactions read zero across the preceding half hour.

Traffic into the stall had been heavy. Blockscout put the prior 24 hours at 14.14 million transactions, on an average fee of $0.48.

🚨 Robinhood Chain suffered a network outage today, halting block production and stalling transactions for over 14 minutes.

Block explorer data shows block creation has only intermittently resumed, with the cause of the disruption still unknown. pic.twitter.com/nZtglQUZ2t

— BeInCrypto (@beincrypto) September 4, 2026 Robinhood Markets (HOOD) runs no public status page for the chain. That leaves block explorers as the only live window onto whether it is running.

Why a Single Sequencer MattersRobinhood launched the chain’s mainnet on July 1, built on Arbitrum’s Nitro software. Every block carries one poster address, a vanity string spelling the word sequencer in hexadecimal.

That design means one operator orders all traffic. When it stops, users have no second sequencer to fall back on and no way to force their transactions through.

L2BEAT, which grades Layer 2 decentralization, ranks Robinhood Chain below Stage 0, its lowest tier. The tracker flags that single sequencer and instant contract upgrades. Only two whitelisted actors can dispute invalid states.

Robinhood Chain on L2BeatThose trade-offs carry more weight now. L2BEAT values assets on the chain at $2.46 billion.

BeInCrypto reported earlier this week that the chain set a decentralized exchange (DEX) record. That record daily DEX volume topped $1.06 billion, driven by meme coins rather than tokenized stocks.

Fee income from that traffic has spilled into the wider Arbitrum ecosystem, lifting both Uniswap’s revenue base and ARB itself.

A brokerage that halts trading owes its customers an explanation. Whether Robinhood treats a chain outage the same way is the open question.

Tether’s omnichain stablecoin protocol has quietly become one of the most heavily used pieces of infrastructure in crypto. Monthly USDT0 transfer counts climbed 438.2% over three years, with Polygon and Arbitrum One responsible for a combined 78.8% of all transfers.

The numbers behind the migration Polygon’s stablecoin activity in 2025 has been staggering. The network processed 452 million stablecoin transactions and 1.4 billion transfers, representing year-over-year growth of 140% and 227%, respectively. Its stablecoin supply reached $2.83B, making it one of the most liquid Layer-2 environments for dollar-denominated tokens.

Arbitrum’s trajectory looks equally aggressive. Daily stablecoin transfers on the network went from roughly 80,000 per day in early 2023 to over 2 million daily by late 2025. That’s a 25x increase in less than three years. Daily transaction volumes now exceed $5B.

Advertisement

USDT0 itself crossed $100B in cumulative cross-chain transfer volume within just 525 days of its early 2025 launch. The protocol has attracted approximately 6.5 million active wallets.

Why Layer-2 networks are winning stablecoin flows Sending USDT on Ethereum mainnet can cost anywhere from a few dollars to tens of dollars during congested periods. On Polygon or Arbitrum, the same transfer costs a tiny fraction of that.

USDT0 leverages LayerZero’s cross-chain messaging infrastructure to enable seamless transfers between networks, allowing native transfers across supported chains with a single transaction rather than manual bridging.

Both Polygon and Arbitrum have also attracted integrations from traditional finance players. Revolut and Stripe have built payment capabilities on Polygon, providing on-ramps that funnel real-world payment demand directly onto the network.

What this means for the stablecoin landscape The competitive dynamics among Layer-2 networks themselves are also worth watching. Polygon and Arbitrum currently dominate with their combined 78.8% share, but newer networks like Base, Optimism, and emerging zero-knowledge rollups are all competing for stablecoin flows.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

8 hours ago

An unaudited report released by the Arbitrum Foundation shows that Arbitrum DAO generated $6.19 million in revenue in the first half of 2026, with sources including Arbitrum One transaction fees, Timeboost sequencing priority auctions, scaling program licensing fees, and treasury management returns. The protocol’s gross profit margin exceeded 97%, and non-ARB treasury assets stood at $125 million as of the end of June. In H1 2026, Arbitrum processed a total of 478 million transactions, accounting for roughly 18% of its cumulative lifetime total of 2.7 billion transactions; monthly average stablecoin transfer volume surpassed $70 billion, and the number of stablecoin holders rose 40% to 10.5 million. Additionally, Arbitrum has deployed over 2,000 tokenized RWAs. Robinhood Chain, built on Arbitrum’s tech stack, launched its mainnet on July 1, contributing $360,000 in licensing fees to the DAO that month, making up 35% of its monthly revenue. On September 1, Robinhood Chain hit daily fees of $3.75 million, decentralized exchange (DEX) volume exceeding $1.5 billion, and total value locked (TVL) of over $750 million.

Scan the QR code

Download APP

Arbitrum [ARB] delivered a 28% gain in the last day as of writing, as the blockchain itself became a central stage for capital movement across the market while retaining most of it.

While there’s a clear sign that the bulls are active in the market, the impact on ARB came from the movement of bridge assets across chains, showing that Arbitrum dominated in netflow with $1.6 billion retained in value.

To put this into perspective, bridge asset netflow tracks capital moving across multiple chains to show how much enters and leaves each chain.

Source: Artemis When the netflow is positive, like in this case, it suggests that most of the capital settled on the chain, a positive factor that can impact price.

At the time of writing, Arbitrum has led other chains in terms of netflow over the last day, ahead of Ethereum [ETH] and Robinhood, which followed, respectively, in terms of flow. Importantly, this type of flow needs to be maintained if there’s going to be a continued rally in the near term.

However, bridge asset movement is just one part of the broader factors that influenced the rally. AMBCrypto found other catalysts that have also impacted the market.

Investors committing to a long-term rally Investors are showing signs of interest in ARB as a whole, with the total value locked (TVL) tracking the health of the chain based on deposited and locked capital.

Between the 19th of August and the time of writing, roughly 13 days have seen its TVL increase by $170 million, reaching a new level of $1.412 billion.

In simple terms, TVL grew by an average of $13.07 million daily. Although this is moderate, it shows there’s strong commitment to the rally.

Source: DeFiLlama Analyzing the chain, activity across decentralized exchanges has also been seeing a good level of activity. Data from DeFiLlama shows that after volume declined steadily between the 21st and 28th of August, there has been a pickup in activity.

Data shows that from the 29th, DEX volume grew by over 151%, reaching a high of about $208.72 million. A surge in volume is particularly helpful to ARB, as it increases usage, which ultimately feeds into demand in the long run.

Yet, it is important to note that this surge in activity reflects usage, not user growth, as daily active traders remained at about 106,500.

Watch the perpetual market On-chain activity only tells one part of the picture, which is why it’s important to analyze what’s happening off-chain across exchanges, a key trading venue for the native ARB token.

CoinGlass data shows that there has been a massive inflow of capital into the perpetual market, which aligns with the rise in ARB.

The Open Interest (OI) of ARB, which tracks the capital value of contracts in an asset, rose by 65%, reaching $169 million. When compared to the Funding Rate of 0.0055%, the data revealed that the majority of market flow, as well as existing capital, was positioned long.

Final Summary Arbitrum retained $1.6 billion in bridge asset netflow as ARB posted a 28% gain in the last day. Rising TVL, DEX volume, and OI point to stronger demand, but daily active traders remain below August highs.

Arbitrum (ARB) has climbed nearly 30% in the past 24 hours, with the token trading as high as $0.12 before settling near $0.11. This rapid price surge comes as the Robinhood Chain—an Ethereum layer 2 solution built with Arbitrum technology—set new records for activity and trading volume, according to figures from the Arbitrum Foundation.

Robinhood Chain and surging activityRobinhood Chain processed 5.52 million transactions on August 30, marking a historic high for the network. Decentralized exchange volumes reached approximately $875 million on the same day, reflecting heightened user participation.

Applications built on Robinhood Chain generated $2.66 million in revenue over 24 hours. This ranked the network third among blockchains in terms of daily app revenue, trailing only Solana‘s $5.07 million and surpassing both Ethereum and Base during the same period.

The economic link between Robinhood Chain and Arbitrum is governed by the Arbitrum Expansion Program. Under this framework, Robinhood Chain distributes 10% of its net protocol revenue back to the Arbitrum ecosystem: 8% goes to the ArbitrumDAO treasury and 2% to the Arbitrum Developer Guild.

More than 30 chains based on Arbitrum technology and settling outside Arbitrum One have adopted similar revenue-sharing models.

It is important to note that the reported $2.66 million in revenue came from applications on Robinhood Chain, not from the chain’s protocol revenue itself. As a result, the 10% distributed to Arbitrum is not directly based on that figure.

Mini dictionary: Robinhood Chain is a layer 2 blockchain developed to improve scalability and efficiency for Ethereum-based applications, utilizing Arbitrum’s technology for faster and more cost-effective transactions.

Memecoin trading drives network usageRecent activity on Robinhood Chain has been overwhelmingly driven by memecoin trading. Users created roughly 22,600 new tokens with Pons in a single day, while top apps including Pons, GMGN, and Uniswap generated approximately 88% of total application revenue.

Combined, Pons and GMGN brought in close to $2 million, and Uniswap added about $307,000 in revenue. Despite Robinhood Chain’s original intention to focus on tokenized assets, memecoins are now fueling a majority of activity.

Derivatives, price action and upcoming unlockARB’s rally was also reflected in derivatives trading. Open interest surged to about $88 million, with short liquidations and the closing of bearish positions contributing to increased buying pressure.

The move set Arbitrum apart from the broader cryptocurrency market, as Bitcoin remained steady near $78,000 and other major altcoins saw smaller gains.

However, a scheduled token unlock on September 23 presents a potential hurdle. On that date, 139.15 million ARB—representing 1.4% of total ARB supply and around 2% of market capitalization—will be released. The distribution allocates 53.8% to insiders, 35% to private investors, and 11.2% to the Arbitrum Foundation.

Unlock DateTokens Unlocked% of Total Supply% of Market CapInsidersPrivate InvestorsFoundationSept. 23139.15M1.4%2%53.8%35%11.2%Sustained buying demand will be necessary to absorb any new tokens entering the market, especially if ARB continues to test the $0.12 to $0.14 zone during this period.

Technical analysis: Resistance and support levelsARB’s daily chart shows the price breaking above all major Fibonacci retracement levels drawn from the August low near $0.072 to the earlier swing high around $0.1096. The rally saw ARB push past $0.12 before slipping back toward $0.111.

Current support levels stand at $0.1008 (23.6% Fibonacci), $0.0953 (38.2%), $0.0909 (50%), and $0.0865 (61.8%). The ADX on the daily chart is near 33.8, suggesting strong directional momentum, with the positive directional indicator significantly higher than the negative.

Holding above $0.1096 would keep $0.12 as the next resistance. A daily close above $0.12 could open the path to $0.13, with $0.14 remaining a key target—last seen during the May decline.

On the 4-hour chart, ARB spiked through the upper Bollinger Band at $0.12 before pulling back. The middle band is around $0.0937, acting as a lower reference point. On-balance volume also saw a notable increase, signaling strong participation during the rally. Sustaining OBV and reclaiming $0.115 could set up another test of $0.12 and higher.

Robinhood Chain’s record transaction volumes and surging decentralized app revenues drove a nearly 30% surge in ARB’s price, bringing targets of $0.12 and $0.14 within reach ahead of a significant token unlock.

Chain owners—not ArbitrumDAO—control screening on dedicated networks, while priority fees remain off on Arbitrum One pending another vote.

Arbitrum activated ArbOS 61 Elara on Aug. 20, adding optional protocol-level transaction screening, priority-fee support and an alternative data-availability interface for dedicated chains, while changing base-fee administration and expanding Stylus capacity on Arbitrum One.

The upgrade went live after approval through Arbitrum governance. The governance proposal included compliance and priority-fee capabilities in ArbOS 61 but left them intentionally disabled on Arbitrum One and Nova. The compliance filter is therefore not a new screening system for users of Arbitrum One; it is configurable tooling for owners of dedicated Arbitrum chains.

Chain Owners Control the FilterArbitrum's technical documentation says compliance filtering is off by default and that chain owners must explicitly configure and enable each component. An owner can select an external compliance provider, such as TRM Labs or Chainalysis, to produce a restricted-address list and can define rules covering transfers, contract calls and other interactions involving those addresses.

Enforcement operates at two levels. The sequencer simulates transactions and rejects those that violate the configured rules before they enter a block. For transactions submitted through the parent chain's Delayed Inbox, a sentinel can register the transaction hash with an onchain guardian so the state transition function forcibly fails it when it is included.

That second layer is designed to prevent a restricted user from bypassing the sequencer through Arbitrum's force-inclusion path. The documentation also says restricted addresses are stored as salted hashes rather than plaintext and recommends that chains wait at least 30 days after the ArbOS 61 release on Arbitrum One before adopting the feature.

Priority Fees Still Require Opt-InElara also gives dedicated-chain owners the ability to collect priority fees, or tips, but the feature ships disabled. Only the chain owner—typically an operator address or DAO—can turn collection on through the access-controlled `ArbOwner` precompile.

Collecting tips alone does not change transaction ordering. A chain must also update its sequencer logic to sort using the priority-fee field. On Arbitrum One, activating priority-fee collection still requires a separate constitutional DAO vote; Elara only installs the underlying capability.

For Arbitrum One's base fee, Elara introduces a `BaseFeeManager` contract that lets Offchain Labs adjust the minimum Layer 2 base fee within a DAO-approved range of 0.01 to 0.10 gwei. The delegation expires two years after mainnet activation, requires public notice through the Arbitrum forum and can be removed by the DAO. The upgrade does not itself raise fees.

The alternative data-availability API is also aimed at dedicated chains, allowing operators to connect providers without maintaining custom Nitro forks. Arbitrum One is not expected to use it because its transaction data settles on Ethereum. Elara separately raises the code-size limit for Stylus contracts from 24 KB to 96 KB; the change does not apply to Solidity contracts.

Earlier this year, a roadmap of the engineering work underway across the Arbitrum Platform outlined the path to help make it the best infrastructure for building financial products in the programmable economy. A key part of that roadmap is a multi-proving model powered by zero-knowledge (ZK) technology.

Bringing ZK proving to Arbitrum One* and dedicated blockchains built with Arbitrum Platform can give the ecosystem a faster path to L1 withdrawals. Instead of relying solely on the traditional seven-day challenge window, ZK proving can reduce asset settlement times from days to hours. This helps increase capital efficiency for users, bridges, and protocols, without compromising the security of the Arbitrum Platform.

The following milestones highlight the latest progress toward enabling live ZK proving.

1. Arbitrum blocks can now be ZK provenZK proving now works in Arbitrum block validation. Point it at a real mainnet block and it generates a zero-knowledge proof that the block executed correctly by running the actual Arbitrum state transition function inside SP1, Succinct's zkVM. This is not a reimplementation or an approximation of Arbitrum, it is the ZK prover running the exact same code as Arbitrum’s optimistic prover. 

2. Stylus works inside the proverArbitrum isn't EVM-only. In fact, Arbitrum Stylus extends the EVM with support for Rust, C/C++, Move, and other languages that compile to WASM, opening the door to ~20 million existing developers and their battle-tested libraries.

The WASM-based prover implementation has been extended to prove Stylus contracts alongside solidity contracts. Arbitrum is the first battle-tested production stack to make its existing EVM and WASM execution ZK-provable.

3. A new high-performance validator, written in RustValidators are the nodes that re-execute the blockchain and check every state update. Arbitrum's core validation machinery has long been written in Rust for performance, but it ran wrapped inside a Go service. SP1, the ZK prover being utilized, is also built around Rust. So, the validator was rebuilt as a standalone Rust service, and it has completed its first rounds of QA.

Rebuilding the validator in Rust accomplished two jobs at once. Firstly, it's a leaner validator that slots into the existing Nitro architecture. Secondly, it makes ZK proving a first-class validation mode rather than a bolt-on: standard validation and proof generation will live behind the same interface, so a node can validate a block or prove it through one path.

4. ZK plugs directly into BoLD settlementBoLD is the protocol Arbitrum uses to settle to Ethereum: anyone can post an assertion (a claim about the blockchain's new state), and it's confirmed after a challenge window passes - with any dispute resolved by an interactive challenge game that guarantees the honest claim wins.

BoLD has been extended to accept ZK proofs. Instead of waiting out the challenge window, an assertion is confirmed as soon as a valid ZK proof lands and a new Fast Confirmation Committee attests to the same result. And because BoLD's dispute game remains underneath, ZK is purely additive: if no proof shows up, the blockchain settles exactly as it does today. This is multi-proving at its finest: ZK proofs, attestations, and fraud proofs working together.

For a deeper dive into how multi-proving works with BoLD, see this breakdown:

Adding ZK to @Arbitrum BoLD protocol was surprisingly simple.

How does it work?

Today, BoLD settlement works like this:
→ Proposers can make assertions (a claim about the chain's new state); when a new assertion comes in a challenge timer starts
→ No rival assertion within… pic.twitter.com/UszAEJmpDJ

— Lumi (@zkLumi) August 5, 2026 5. Systematically lowering proving costs Arbitrum proving was benchmarked head-to-head against vanilla Ethereum proving, and the extra costs were traced to their sources, down to where every cycle goes.

From there, big expense drivers have been addressed one by one: the proving pipeline optimized for WASM execution, runtime overhead inside the prover reduced, intensive cryptography offloaded to the zkVM's optimized precompiles. Further structural wins, like multi-block proving, come next.

6. Moving from research branch to production codebaseZK proving is now merging into the main Arbitrum Nitro codebase, the same codebase every Arbitrum blockchain runs today. The work landed first on a dedicated feature branch, and it's being moved into the main branch piece by piece. Once complete, ZK execution of Arbitrum lives in the production code path, not a side experiment or separate repository, ready for dedicated blockchains on the Arbitrum Platform to adopt.

Next stepsTo achieve ZK proving in production, there are three key upcoming work streams:

Drive down costs and latency by further optimizing proving and moving to Reth-based executionClose the loop on end-to-end verifiability by proving the blockchain's L1 message inbox Wire these capabilities into the node so blockchains can easily toggle ZK settlement as a configuration. Together with other initiatives underway, executing on these core milestones will pave the way for efficient, multi-prover settlement across the Arbitrum Platform.

*Offchain will bring a proposal to the DAO to upgrade Arbitrum One to ZK settlement. If passed, other blockchains built with Arbitrum Platform will be able to upgrade at will.

Disclaimer: The information provided is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, technological, or any other form of advice. Please conduct your own independent research and consult with a qualified professional before making any decisions. Statements regarding product roadmap, planned functionality, developments in progress, and future direction are forward-looking, reflect current expectations only, and are not commitments or guarantees. 

August 16, 2026 12:00 PM

Share this article:

Table of contents

Two significant token unlocks are landing on August 16, 2026, adding fresh supply pressure to a market that’s already trading soft. YZY is releasing roughly 22.83% of its entire circulating supply, worth an estimated $35.8 million, while Arbitrum is unlocking 92.65 million ARB tokens, about 1.61% of circulating supply and worth roughly $7.2 million, with the latter already weighing on price ahead of today’s release.

YZY’s Unlock Is the Larger Story by Percentage
YZY’s release stands out for its sheer size relative to the token’s existing float: nearly a quarter of everything currently in circulation is becoming available in a single day. Unlocks of that magnitude typically create meaningful sell-side pressure, since early holders and insiders often look to realize gains once tokens become liquid, regardless of where the broader market is trading. Whether YZY absorbs the new supply cleanly will depend heavily on current trading volume and how much of the unlocked allocation belongs to long-term holders versus short-term participants looking to exit.

Arbitrum’s Unlock Has Already Moved the Price
Arbitrum’s unlock is smaller as a share of supply but has already had a measurable market impact. ARB fell 3.9% over the roughly 39 hours leading into the release, a decline attributed to a combination of the pending unlock and broader risk-off sentiment across altcoins this week. No underlying protocol issues have been identified behind the move, suggesting the drop reflects positioning ahead of the event rather than any fundamental concern about the network itself.

Why Token Unlocks Matter for Price
Scheduled unlocks are known well in advance, which means sophisticated traders often price in some of the expected selling pressure before the event actually occurs, exactly the pattern seen in Arbitrum’s pre-unlock decline this week. That dynamic can cut both ways: if the anticipated selling is already reflected in price by the time tokens actually unlock, the token can sometimes stabilize or even recover once the event passes and uncertainty clears.

What This Means for the Days Ahead
The more consequential test is YZY, given the scale of supply hitting the market relative to what’s already circulating. How the token trades over the next few sessions will offer a clearer read on whether holders are treating the unlock as a reason to exit or a non-event already priced in. Arbitrum’s price action in the days following its own unlock will be worth watching for early signs of stabilization, particularly if broader market sentiment improves.

Share this article:

AUTHOR

Max delves deep into the cryptocurrency realm, with a passion for altcoins and NFTs. Convinced of crypto's transformative potential, he envisions a decentralized financial future. Max's background in the financial sector grants him unique insights into global monetary systems. In his leisure, Max embraces the thrill of adventures and is an avid sports enthusiast, finding balance and rejuvenation away from work.

Recommended for you

August 15, 2026

August 15, 2026

August 14, 2026

August 14, 2026

August 14, 2026

Coinbase is pulling the plug on DAI deposits and withdrawals across three major Layer 2 and alternative networks. Starting August 17, 2026, users will no longer be able to move DAI through Avalanche, Arbitrum, or Optimism on the platform.

The stablecoin will still be supported on Ethereum’s mainnet. But for anyone who’s been routing DAI through those faster, cheaper networks, it’s time to rethink the workflow.

What’s actually changing Coinbase first flagged the change back around July 13, 2026, and dropped a reminder on August 12 as the deadline approaches. The mechanics are straightforward: after August 17, any attempt to deposit or withdraw DAI via Avalanche, Arbitrum, or Optimism through Coinbase will simply stop working.

One important wrinkle: DAI isn’t actually listed for trading on Coinbase. The exchange only supports deposits and withdrawals of the token on certain networks. So this isn’t about delisting a trading pair. It’s about narrowing the infrastructure pipes through which DAI can flow in and out of the platform.

Advertisement

Users holding DAI on those networks will need to either bridge their tokens to Ethereum before the cutoff or find alternative routes. Ethereum remains the one supported highway for moving DAI through Coinbase after the deadline.

And DAI isn’t alone in getting trimmed. Coinbase is also ending support for USDC on the Noble network and cbETH on various Layer 2 networks on the same August 17 date.

Why Coinbase is consolidating DAI, issued by MakerDAO, was designed to be a decentralized stablecoin usable across multiple blockchains. It’s pegged to the US dollar and backed by crypto collateral rather than bank deposits. The token has historically seen the lion’s share of its activity on Ethereum, which makes the decision to keep that network supported while pruning others a logical one from a volume perspective.

Arbitrum, Optimism, and Avalanche are all networks that offer faster and cheaper transactions than Ethereum’s mainnet. They’ve grown substantially as scaling solutions for DeFi users looking to avoid Ethereum’s sometimes painful gas fees. But for a centralized exchange like Coinbase, the question isn’t whether those networks are useful in general. It’s whether enough DAI is moving through them on Coinbase specifically to warrant continued support.

What this means for DAI users The immediate practical impact falls on a specific subset of users: those who deposit or withdraw DAI through Coinbase using Avalanche, Arbitrum, or Optimism. If that describes your setup, you have until August 17 to adjust.

The simplest path is bridging DAI to Ethereum before the deadline. Alternatively, users could withdraw DAI to a self-custody wallet on any of the affected networks and manage it outside of Coinbase entirely.

The bigger signal here is strategic. Coinbase has been methodically trimming its network support across multiple tokens, and the August 17 batch of changes covering DAI, USDC on Noble, and cbETH on Layer 2s suggests this is an ongoing program rather than a one-time adjustment.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Tl;dr Your Chain, Your Rules. As Arbitrum sees massive adoption by those building applications, infrastructure, and Orbit Chains, we’re hard at work on a variety of technical updates. These updates ensure that the usability, interoperability, and utility of Arbitrum continues to lead the adoption curve. Outlined below is the roadmap we intend to deliver, making your vision of blockchains a reality.

Your Chain, Your Rules.

As we set our (technical) course for the upcoming year, we at Offchain Labs remain steadfast in one of our core values: Your Chain, Your Rules. We continue to believe that blockchains are building a better internet, one with users and developers at the core. Using Arbitrum technology, builders can create powerful onchain apps and vibrant blockchain ecosystems. Users and institutions can safely steward themselves in a natively digital economy. Communities have the power to self-govern.

With this in mind, we encourage everyone interacting with Arbitrum chains to be visionaries, to stay curious, and to move forward with confidence knowing the tech just works.

The Roadmap

When we launched Arbitrum on August 31, 2021 (Arbitrum Day), we tackled the first major hurdle in blockchain adoption: scalability. Over the past three years, we’ve continued to scale, introduced entirely new capabilities, and created the most technically sound and open blockchain platform available.

As blockchain technology expands its reach across industries and gives rise to new ones, builders and users face the very challenges we’re committed to solving: fundamental usability, driving adoption, offering robust decentralization guarantees to users, and an infrastructure layer that just works.

We’re bridging the gap for builders and users by simplifying interactions with Arbitrum chains, driving wider adoption. Interoperability is at our core, allowing seamless navigation between chains using secure technology. We’re abstracting complex decision-making processes about ‘which stack or chain to use’ and creating the unified system.

It’s simple…Your Chain, Your Rules — giving you the freedom to innovate and build on a foundation you can trust.

DevEx, UX, and Adoption

To drive adoption we need to make building on blockchains more expressive, performant, and accessible for developers. Enter Stylus.

Stylus transcends the constraints of building on Ethereum by allowing developers to program in languages that compile to WebAssembly (WASM), like Rust, C, and C++.

Solidity has an important part of our history and an important part of our future as well; Arbitrum’s support for EVM isn’t going anywhere. At the same time, we must recognize that the number of Solidity developers and the corpus of existing code is far smaller than traditional programming languages. Stylus allows us to be more inclusive and welcome in a growing developer base without compromising the EVM experience for those who love it.

Stylus meets the growing need for performant and secure smart contract languages, while simultaneously expanding the design space for increasingly expressive onchain applications. In addition, Stylus is an efficient execution environment leading directly to gas savings for complex smart contracts. With Stylus, computation and memory costs can be significantly cheaper.

And you don’t have to wait…

If you’ve been around the Arbitrum ecosystem for a while, you know some of the biggest ecosystem launches happen on Arbitrum Day. (Well ok ok technically, Arbitrum Day falls on a holiday weekend in the US this year, so we’ll be observing it a few days late).

Arbitrum Stylus will go live on Arbitrum One and Nova mainnet on Arbitrum Day ushering in a new phase of innovation across the ecosystem and make the developer and user experiences even better. It’s the biggest execution layer upgrade to ever hit our industry.

Decentralization

The core ethos of blockchain technology, which values decentralization and trustlessness, is core to everything we build at Offchain and our future development plans for the Arbitrum technology stack. We are working on a number of near-term and future developments to strengthen foundational infrastructure, ensuring decentralization remains not just a theoretical concept, but a practical reality in the ecosystem:

BoLD (H2 2024): In addition to improved security, BoLD enables safe decentralized validation and moves Arbitrum closer to being a Stage 2 rollup, the final stage in L2 Beat’s stage definitions.Censorship Timeout (H2 2024): Building upon BoLD, Censorship Timeout limits the negative impact to Arbitrum chains from a repeatedly censoring or offline sequencer, potentially due to an attack. This provides stronger guarantees of censorship resistance to Arbitrum chains, and improves user fund access.Decentralized Sequencer (likely 2025): Decentralizing the Arbitrum sequencer is the last step in Arbitrum’s decentralization roadmap. A decentralized sequencer distributes the responsibility of transaction ordering across a broader, decentralized network of participants, reducing the risk of censorship attacks and enhancing reliability.At Offchain, we believe in the core ethos of blockchain tech and build products for decentralized adoption. The features mentioned in this post can be adopted by Arbitrum Orbit chains when available, or the Arbitrum DAO can vote in any or all of these technical upgrades to the chains it governs (Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova).

Interoperability and Horizontal Scaling

The introduction of Arbitrum Orbit ushered in a new era, empowering teams to innovate solutions for their own specific use cases. Arbitrum Orbit allows developers to customize their chains in any way they see fit. Our guiding principle remains: Your Chain, Your Rules. As builders focus on pushing boundaries, we’re committed to implementing significant performance and interop improvements by tackling fundamental engineering challenges. Our long-term strategy combines vertical and horizontal scaling efforts, enabling developers to accomplish more.

To unify the Arbitrum Ecosystem (Arbitrum Orbit, Arbitrum One, Arbitrum Nova, and Ethereum) we’re building towards frictionless interoperability between chains rooted in fast communication. Optimistic rollups offer the lowest cost and greatest flexibility, but their main barrier to horizontal scaling is the confirmation delay introduced by the challenge period. Longer confirmation time means that worst-case cross-chain communication may require days or alternatively placing trust in 3rd-parties.

We’re working on several interop solutions that will reduce these confirmation delays and enable horizontal scaling:

Fast Withdrawals (Q3 2024):The imminent release of Fast Withdrawals will enable AnyTrust chains to bypass the confirmation delay, and settle to their parent chain within minutes. These fast confirmations will enable sibling L2s (or L3s) to communicate quickly with one another, thereby enabling developers to shard workloads and scale horizontally.Chain Clusters(2025): Looking ahead into next year, we plan to further expand the toolbox of developers to horizontally scale Orbit chains with the release of Chain Clusters. By allowing multiple Orbit chains to closely align their ecosystem and infrastructure, Chain Clusters can be used to reduce cross-chain communication time from minutes to near-instant.Performance and Efficiency

From the very beginning, back in 2014, Arbitrum’s design has focused on performance and efficiency. Now, we’re looking to deliver the next iteration of enhancements in compute efficiency and performance with fundamental optimizations to execution.

Multi-client support (H1 2025): Arbitrum Nitro is the node software that powers all Arbitrum-based chains and is built on Geth, a Golang implementation of the execution specification for L1 Ethereum. Since the debut of Arbitrum Nitro back in August 31, 2022, many new Execution Layer (EL) client implementations have launched or improved significantly — all with varying and unique value propositions and optimization targets. As the stability and quality of these alternative clients have improved, Offchain Labs has been working towards readying the Arbitrum stack to support alternative clients.When we evaluate other clients, our main objective is to optimize at-head block production speeds which over time will (1) reduce the hardware cost of existing node operators and (2) pave the way for the safe increase of the speed limit (i.e. target throughput) on Arbitrum chains.

We have already begun testing and evaluating performance and benchmarks for several clients including Paradigm’s newly released Reth 1.0, Erigon 3.0, and Nethermind with the goal of delivering a production-ready multi-client implementation in 2025 and streamlining the process of adding additional clients down the road. Although our current analysis suggests that some alternative clients are still behind Geth in a few performance benchmarks, we believe that it’s prudent to ready the path for Arbitrum adoption as these clients further optimize.

Adaptive Pricing (H1 2025): On current EVM chains, gas limits are set to prevent nodes from over-consuming the most scarce computational resource. This means that the gas limit for a chain is always a worst-case assessment, designed to protect against a transaction load that uses a node’s most constrained resource.In contrast with a worst-case approach, Adaptive Pricing considers the actual resources being used and dynamically sets the gas limit accordingly. With Adaptive Pricing, the chain will only raise fees and throttle down resource consumption when a particular resource is approaching its actual limit, as opposed to a hypothetical maximum of what resources a different transaction might have used.

Adaptive Pricing will further enable scaling by allowing smart contracts to more efficiently use the full resources made available by nodes, and operate much closer to the true gas limit. Overall performance will increase without increasing the capacity of the network’s nodes. Adaptive Pricing also improves resilience versus extreme traffic patterns (e.g. inscriptions), where usage patterns change radically, but temporarily, by dynamically lowering gas limits only when necessary.

Zero-knowledge proofs

Offchain is committed to scaling Ethereum with the best possible technology stack. By constantly working at the limits of available technology, we can identify improvements to deliver into our scaling solutions. While today it’s clear that from the perspectives of stability, maturity, cost, and security, Arbitrum Nitro is the best stack to scale Ethereum, our research team has identified several paths where we can incorporate productive uses of zero knowledge (ZK).

In his 2023 medium post as well as recent talks at EthCC and SBC, our Chief Scientist Ed Felten presented a hybrid construction for how ZK can be integrated into Arbitrum chains. One particular area of active research studying ZK:

ZK+Optimistic Hybrid Proving: In the Arbitrum rollup and dispute resolution protocol, ZK proofs could eventually be used to instantly confirm assertions, acting as an optional and fast path to confirmation on the parent chain. Optimistic proving could still be used if ZK proofs are not provided. This enables users and developers on Arbitrum chains to access very fast native interoperability on an as-needed basis.Always Looking Ahead

At Offchain we are committed to creating solutions before problems arise. The monumental efforts to build three products ready for deployment this year — Stylus, BoLD, and Timeboost (click to learn more) — are proof points of Offchain Labs our research team is leading from the front. These innovations will make blockchains more accessible and support core values of decentralization.

Our deep bench of researchers, engineers, product managers, partnerships, marketers, and operations professionals push the boundaries of what can be done in this space. We build our products for you to innovate with the assumption that your infrastructure just works.

There is a lot more on the roadmap, but we wanted to share some of the mountains you’ll start to see moving in the near term.

Tokenized stocks on blockchain rails have been the white whale of crypto for years. Reality Protocol, the issuer behind Bitget’s Stocks 2.0 initiative, is making a credible run at it with 69 tokens collectively worth $137.6 million on Arbitrum One.

The three largest assets by market cap are rMU (Micron), rSNDK (SanDisk), and rNVDA (NVIDIA), all trading as ERC-20 tokens that offer 1:1 economic exposure to their underlying US equities. Each token is designed to track the price of an actual stock, backed by real shares held in custody.

How Reality Protocol actually works Reality Protocol launched between May and June 2026 as part of Bitget’s broader push to bring traditional equities into its crypto trading ecosystem.

Each rToken is an ERC-20 asset deployed on Arbitrum One. The tokens are backed by actual shares in custody, not synthetic exposure or derivatives. Independent daily Proof-of-Reserve audits are conducted by The Network Firm, with results verifiable at realityfinance.xyz.

Advertisement

The protocol also introduced USDT-based trading, meaning users don’t need to touch fiat rails to get equity exposure. Dividends are distributed separately as stablecoins. On-chain trading and margin accounts round out the feature set.

The expansion is already underway As of late July 2026, Bitget expanded collateral eligibility for staking loans to 103 rTokens, adding 38 new Reality-issued assets to the supported list.

The choice of Arbitrum One as the settlement layer is strategic. Arbitrum consistently ranks as one of the highest-TVL Layer 2 networks, which means rTokens benefit from existing liquidity infrastructure and a large user base that already knows how to interact with ERC-20 assets.

$138M in market cap across 69 tokens means the average token sits around $2M. For a protocol that’s been live for roughly two months, it represents meaningful early traction in a category that has historically struggled to gain any traction at all.

What this means for investors Reality Protocol’s approach embeds within an existing exchange ecosystem rather than trying to build a standalone platform. Bitget brings the user base. Reality brings the issuance infrastructure. Arbitrum brings the settlement layer. The Network Firm brings the audit trail.

The risk profile deserves attention. These tokens are only as good as the custody arrangement backing them and the legal framework protecting holders. Daily audits help, but they’re not a substitute for the investor protections that come with a regulated brokerage. If the custodian fails or the issuer runs into regulatory trouble, rToken holders could face a very different experience than traditional shareholders.

The expansion to 103 collateral-eligible tokens suggests Bitget is committed to making this a core part of its platform rather than a side experiment.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Offchain Labs is thrilled to announce another milestone in the evolution of Arbitrum: the testnet availability of Arbitrum BOLD — the next-generation dispute resolution protocol with working, interactive fraud proofs for optimistic rollups. Building upon the foundation laid in our original announcement of BOLD on August 3, 2023, this announcement marks another step towards fully permissionless validation on Arbitrum chains and greater decentralization.

Fraud proofs on rollups are only as useful as the dispute process that runs them. Arbitrum has been secured using fraud proofs in production from day-one, and the Offchain Labs team has continued to iterate on creating a dispute resolution protocol for Arbitrum that is permissionless, safe, and solves many of the pitfalls other designs suffer from. BOLD guarantees a fixed upper-bound on the confirmation of Arbitrum states on Ethereum and allows a single, well-resourced party to defend claims against many adversaries without needing to play 1-vs-1 games against them.

Arbitrum has always been committed to scalability, efficiency, and security. As part of Offchain Labs’ comprehensive plan to ensure BOLD is rigorously tested and robust in design, we’ve deployed the implementation of BOLD on a public testnet. The BOLD-enabled public testnet validates and posts assertions to Ethereum Sepolia and gives the community a chance to deploy a BOLD validator to see this bleeding-edge dispute protocol in action. Shortly after, we expect a proposal will be made to activate BOLD on Arbitrum Sepolia, followed by a Tally vote.

Why is permissionless validation important for decentralization & Arbitrum?

So, what exactly does permissionless validation mean for Arbitrum? In essence, it empowers anyone to secure claims made about Arbitrum’s state on Ethereum. That is, withdrawals from Arbitrum back to Ethereum can be verified or challenged by anyone in the world, ensuring the correct history always remains correct. Currently, Arbitrum validators are allow-listed, but with BOLD, the use of a permissioned list of validators will no longer be necessary. This democratization of validation will not only enhance the security and resilience of the network, but also foster greater decentralization and resiliency within the ecosystem.

BOLD’s benefits for the Arbitrum community include:

Permissionless Validation: Participants can run their own validator nodes and contribute to the consensus process, helping to secure the network and validate withdrawals back to Ethereum.Enhanced Security: BOLD taps into the 10 years of experience the Offchain Labs team has in designing interactive proving protocols to create a new system for Arbitrum that is resilient to delay attacks and allows a single, well-resourced honest party to defeat many evil parties without needing to play 1-vs-1 games. Honest BOLD validators will win against evil claims within a fixed upper-bound of 7 days and have their stakes reimbursed when disputes are resolved, so long as they follow the protocol.Pooled Challenge Funding: Issuing a challenge requires significant funding. However, anyone can create a trustless smart contract to pool funds together and defend Arbitrum against invalid claims, or challenge invalid claims posted by others.Mathematical Foundations: After over a year in development, the Offchain Labs research team has produced formal safety proofs for BOLD. The BOLD smart contracts are currently being thoroughly audited by Trail of Bits.Getting Closer to Stage Two

In his recent blog, “Ethereum has blobs. Where do we go from here?” Vitalik writes about many aspects of improving Ethereum L2s, including the need for continuous improvements to security and decentralization.

BOLD has the potential to take another major step for Arbitrum along this journey by addressing the (currently yellow) State Validation wedge in the L2 Beat risk analysis pie chart. L2 Beat’s commentary currently notes:

Fraud proofs allow 14 WHITELISTED actors watching the chain to prove that the state is incorrect.By replacing the allowlisted validators with permissionless validators via BOLD, Arbitrum chains will be able to address this particular concern and move further towards greater decentralization and achieve even greater Ethereum alignment.

Written by Raul Jordan, Derek Lee, David Dennis

Offchain Lab’s partner studio and venture capital arm, Tandem, has invested in Camelot, an Arbitrum native decentralized exchange (DEX), solidifying its position as a native DEX in the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Originally launched without VC funding and entirely bootstrapped by the Arbitrum community, Camelot has become the largest protocol exclusively native to Arbitrum, exemplifying the strength and potential of community-driven development.

Iron Boots, a cofounder of Camelot, said that when DeFi first gained traction, a lot of the relationships built around it were short-term and yield-focused. Camelot, however, took a different approach.

“One of the key aspects of our vision has always been to build long-term relationships. It’s not just about the rewards we exchange; it’s about working together to create something for the future,” Iron Boots said.

From its inception, Camelot has been driven by a clear mission: to foster innovation, collaboration, and sustainable growth within a thriving blockchain ecosystem. This vision led the team to focus exclusively on building a decentralized exchange tailored to the unique needs of Arbitrum.

For the first six months from its inception, Camelot spent time and resources to convince users to join Arbitrum, this was because Camelot recognized Arbitrum as a network beyond its technical capabilities, offering an organic and vibrant ecosystem for developers and projects. The team also aligned with Arbitrum’s core mission of making blockchain more scalable and secure for everyone.

This fundamental alignment of values between Camelot and Arbitrum served as a cornerstone for the DEX’s approach. Rather than chasing short-term gains, Camelot prioritized structuring itself to fully commit to long-term, sustainable goals.

“Camelot has become a cornerstone of the Arbitrum ecosystem, providing a robust decentralized exchange and a hub for innovation and collaboration. Their commitment to supporting builders, fostering community growth, and aligning with Arbitrum’s vision has played a critical role in the network’s success,” A.J. Warner, Chief Strategy Officer at Offchain Labs said. “Camelot’s presence strengthens our ecosystem, and their focus on sustainability and long-term value creation continues to drive meaningful progress for all participants.”

Today, Camelot is not only a liquidity hub on Arbitrum but also a launchpad for new projects and a community-driven platform for builders. The DEX has over 75 partners and $46 billion in volume traded, generating over $48 million from fees and a TVL of $120 million. Additionally, Camelot was one of the first protocols to expand beyond Arbitrum One and Nova and has now been deployed on over 14 different Arbitrum chains.

Tandem’s investment in Camelot highlights Offchain Labs’ confidence in its mission and potential. “We are committed to supporting projects that push the boundaries of what’s possible in DeFi. Camelot’s approach to creating sustainable, community-driven solutions in the Arbitrum ecosystem made it a natural fit for our portfolio,” Ira Auerbach, Head of Tandem, said.

As Arbitrum expands, Camelot will be at the forefront. Although initially focused on Arbitrum One, Camelot now extends its reach to other Arbitrum chains. This shift has broadened Camelot’s role in the Arbitrum ecosystem, becoming a unifying force for liquidity across various networks.

“It’s not just about building technical bridges between chains; it’s about making all these different chains feel like an integral part of Arbitrum. A key part of our vision moving forward is figuring out how to create a cohesive and aligned ecosystem across all of them,” Iron Boots said.

@Shopify has added $USDC payment support to its core payments stack, with @Arbitrum among the supported networks. The integration allows over 480 compatible digital wallets to execute retail transactions directly through Shopify Payments, positioning stablecoins as a practical alternative to traditional card networks for merchants worldwide.

How It Works at Checkout Shopify has wired USDC directly into its payments stack, allowing merchants to accept digital dollars at checkout without adding new providers or changing existing workflows. The feature sits inside Shopify Payments, meaning merchants can enable it alongside credit cards and other payment options.

Shopify Payments accepts $USDC on five networks: Base, Ethereum L1, Optimism, Polygon, and Arbitrum, with access through 480-plus supported crypto wallets and no gas fees charged to the buyer. Crucially, no foreign exchange fees apply either, removing two of the most common friction points for cross-border commerce.

Customers can pay with USDC on Ethereum, Base, or other chains, and funds bridge automatically, so the merchant does not need to think about which network the buyer used.

Settlement Options and Merchant Flexibility On the back end, merchants can choose whether to receive funds in traditional fiat payouts or settle in USDC on-chain. Shopify states that USDC payments convert to local currency by default, with no foreign exchange or multi-currency fees, and deposit to the connected bank account.

The integration is built in partnership with Stripe and Coinbase for wallet connectivity and transaction processing, with settlement occurring on Base and support for USDT planned.

The move reflects a broader shift in commerce infrastructure. Stablecoin payments reached $1.1 trillion in transaction volume in 2024, with Visa and Allium Labs confirming that stablecoins processed 2.5 times Visa's adjusted transfer volume that same year. For merchants processing high volumes of cross-border transactions, the economics are hard to ignore.

PYMNTS: Shopify Signals Stablecoin Preferences With USDC Integration
Digital Applied: Shopify Spring 2026 Checkout and Payments Updates
Shopifreaks: Shopify Adds USDC Stablecoin to Its Core Payments Stack

What the expanded deal coversThe Arbitrum Foundation (@arbitrum) and on-chain derivatives protocol Variational (@variational_io) have announced an expanded partnership, adding at least two further security audits sponsored by the Foundation before the end of Q3 2026. Alongside the audit commitment, the Foundation is covering gas fees for the Variational protocol and funding an independent statistics page built by Entropy Advisors. The page will track key metrics including volume, open interest, total value locked, and execution costs.

The move is a notable shift in how a Layer 2 network is choosing to support a native protocol. Rather than deploying a broad token incentive program, the Foundation is absorbing direct operating costs, specifically security and gas, for a protocol it considers strategically important. Covering audits and gas arguably builds deeper loyalty than short-term liquidity mining campaigns, and signals a more targeted approach to ecosystem development.

Variational's scale on ArbitrumVariational is a peer-to-peer trading, clearing, and settlement protocol for perpetuals and generalized derivatives, built natively on Arbitrum . It provides infrastructure for bilateral trading of options, futures, perpetuals, and other instruments, with multiple applications built on top of the protocol, including Omni for retail perpetuals and Pro for institutional OTC derivatives.

According to data from DefiLlama cited in the original announcement, Variational is currently sitting at $1.28 billion in open interest with $24.6 billion in perpetuals volume over the past 30 days. DefiLlama Research has noted that Variational places within the top 10 perpetual DEXs by both daily and 30-day volume, describing it as a clear signal of genuine and growing traction in the market.

The protocol's growth has attracted significant external capital. In May 2026, Variational closed a $50 million Series A led by Dragonfly Capital, with Bain Capital Crypto and Coinbase Ventures participating, bringing total disclosed funding to over $60 million. The Foundation's expanded operational support now complements that private backing with direct infrastructure commitments.

For Arbitrum, deepening the relationship with one of its highest-volume native protocols reinforces the ecosystem's position in on-chain derivatives at a time when the broader perps market is becoming increasingly competitive.

Sources:
DefiLlama Research: Variational and the Shift to Onchain Brokerage
Variational Protocol Stats, DefiLlama
The Block: Variational raises $10.3 million in seed funding

Every dollar Robinhood Chain earns, a tenth goes to a DAO treasury controlled by strangers. The arrangement has been covered a dozen times as good news for Arbitrum’s token.

Summary

Robinhood Chain runs on Arbitrum’s Orbit stack, and under the Arbitrum Expansion Program every Orbit chain settling outside Arbitrum One routes 10% of net protocol revenue back to the Arbitrum ecosystem. The split is fixed: 8% to the Arbitrum DAO treasury, controlled by ARB tokenholders, and 2% to the Arbitrum Developer Guild. The figures are now real, no longer theoretical. Robinhood Chain has passed $2 million in cumulative revenue since its July 1 launch, with roughly $200,000 flowing to Arbitrum, and Arbitrum reported the network earning over $800,000 in a single seven-day stretch, annualizing near $42 million. The payment is calculated on net revenue after operating costs, applies to sequencer profits, and may extend to MEV capture if the chain adopts Arbitrum’s Timeboost mechanism. Every version of this story published so far has been written for ARB holders. The unexamined half is what the arrangement costs the brokerage, and why a company with a $2.2 billion war chest chose to pay it. Nobody has asked the other question: what a licensed brokerage that spent a decade removing intermediaries bought by becoming a tenant.

There is a particular irony in a company whose entire founding pitch was the removal of intermediaries acquiring one. Robinhood spent a decade telling retail investors that the layers between them and the market were extractive, that commissions were a tax on participation, and that the right architecture was fewer parties taking a cut. On July 1 it launched its own blockchain, the most complete expression of that philosophy available: a settlement layer it controls, sequencing it operates, and fee revenue it collects. And under the terms of the technology stack it chose, a tenth of what that chain nets goes to somebody else. Specifically, 8% goes to a treasury controlled by holders of a governance token, and 2% funds a developer guild, both under an arrangement called the Arbitrum Expansion Program. The mechanism has been reported repeatedly since Offchain Labs disclosed it, always from one direction: what it means for ARB, why the token rallied, how a governance asset acquired a revenue claim. This piece asks the question those pieces did not. What did Robinhood buy, what is it paying, and does the arithmetic work.

What the arrangement actually is The mechanics are specific enough to matter, and they have been reported loosely in several places.

The Arbitrum Expansion Program applies to any Layer 2 or Layer 3 chain built with Arbitrum’s Orbit toolkit that settles outside Arbitrum One or Arbitrum Nova. Those chains route 10% of net protocol revenue back to the Arbitrum ecosystem. Of that 10%, eight percentage points flow to the Arbitrum DAO treasury, which ARB tokenholders control through governance, and two percentage points fund the Arbitrum Developer Guild, which supports tooling, grants, and protocol work.

Three details in that description carry weight and are frequently dropped.Net, not gross. The calculation runs on revenue remaining after network operating costs, which ties the payment to a chain’s actual profitability instead of raw transaction throughput. That is materially friendlier to an operator than a gross fee would be, and it means a chain running at thin margins pays little regardless of volume.

Sequencer profits are the base. The revenue subject to sharing comes from the entity that orders and processes transactions, which on Robinhood Chain is Robinhood. That is the same revenue line this publication has examined as the core economics of any Layer 2, and it is precisely the line the chain exists to capture.

MEV may be included. If the chain adopts Timeboost, Arbitrum’s mechanism for capturing maximal extractable value from transaction ordering, those revenues could fall under the sharing arrangement as well. Whether Robinhood adopts it is a live question with real dollars attached, since ordering advantages on a chain hosting tokenized equities are worth considerably more than on a memecoin venue.

For contrast, Arbitrum One sends 100% of its own fees to the Arbitrum treasury. The Orbit arrangement is the lighter one, which is the point: it is the price of using the stack without settling on the flagship chain.

The numbers, now that they exist For the first three weeks this was an abstraction. It is not anymore.

Robinhood Chain has passed $2 million in cumulative revenue since its July 1 launch, with approximately $200,000 routed to the Arbitrum ecosystem under the program. That is a clean 10%, and it is the first hard confirmation that the mechanism operates as described, not as an aspiration in a governance document.

Around that sit the throughput figures that produced it. The chain processed roughly 4 million transactions in its first week. Uniswap alone recorded $500 million in 24-hour volume on it. A single day in early July cleared $568 million. Within about two weeks the chain was clearing more than $800 million in daily decentralized exchange volume, briefly exceeding Ethereum’s, with roughly $3.9 billion across a week. Arbitrum reported the network earning over $800,000 in revenue across seven days, which annualizes near $42 million. Deposits crossed $600 million this week, rising 50% in seven days.

Now the distortion that every honest reading has to apply. The chain is running a 90-day gas subsidy, expiring around October, which means users are not paying the fees a mature chain would charge and the revenue figures are suppressed accordingly. Our audit of the chain’s first month documented how thoroughly that subsidy inflates activity metrics; it works in the opposite direction on revenue. The $42 million annualized figure is therefore both a real number and a floor, and the interesting reading comes after the subsidy lapses, when volumes and revenues both reprice. For broader context, crypto.news has also explained the subsidy distorting these numbers.

At current run rates, Arbitrum’s share is roughly $4 million a year. Against Robinhood’s quarterly revenue near $1.27 billion, that is a rounding error. Against the chain’s own economics, it is a tenth of everything.

What Robinhood bought The arrangement only looks strange if you assume the alternative was free. It was not, and the alternatives are worth setting out because the choice reveals the strategy.

Build independently. A brokerage could commission a chain from scratch, own 100% of sequencer revenue, and pay nothing to anyone. The cost is time, engineering risk, and security. Rolling your own settlement layer means auditing it, defending it, and answering for it when something breaks, which for a regulated financial institution holding customer assets is not a theoretical exposure. It also means no ecosystem: no existing tooling, no bridges, no wallets that already work.

Use an existing chain. Deploy on Arbitrum One or Base or anywhere else, pay ordinary fees, capture nothing. This is what Robinhood actually did first, launching tokenized stock offerings on Arbitrum in 2025 before committing to its own chain, and the limitation is obvious: you are a tenant with no landlord’s economics and no control over the roadmap, the fee schedule, or who else gets to build next door.

Take the Orbit path. Get a chain you brand, control, and sequence, with Offchain Labs providing technical support, inheriting the Arbitrum ecosystem’s tooling and security assumptions, at the price of a tenth of net revenue. The launch specifications suggest what that bought: 100-millisecond block times, EVM compatibility, ETH as the gas asset instead of a new token nobody asked for, and a chain live and processing millions of transactions within a week of announcement.

Read that way, the 10% is a build-versus-buy decision resolved in favour of speed, and for a public company with a stock to defend and a crypto revenue line that fell 47% year over year in the first quarter, speed was plausibly worth more than margin. Our earnings analysis covered why the timing mattered so much.

The uncomfortable version of the same read is that Robinhood, having concluded that owning the rails is where the value sits, does not actually own them. It leases them, with favourable terms, from a decentralized organization whose token holders vote on what to do with the proceeds.

The tenant problem That last sentence is not a rhetorical flourish. It describes a governance relationship that no traditional financial infrastructure arrangement resembles, and it has consequences nobody has priced.

The 8% going to the Arbitrum DAO treasury is controlled by ARB tokenholders through governance votes. Those holders decide how the money is deployed. They also, through the same governance process, hold influence over the direction of the technology stack Robinhood’s chain depends on. A licensed brokerage supervised by federal regulators is now a revenue contributor to, and a dependent of, an entity whose decision-making runs through token voting by anonymous participants.

For most crypto-native businesses that is unremarkable. For a public company that files with the SEC, answers to a board, and holds customer assets under regulatory obligation, it is a novel counterparty structure. The questions it raises are practical, not philosophical: what happens if governance votes to change the fee arrangement, what recourse exists if the stack’s roadmap diverges from the tenant’s needs, and how a regulated institution documents dependency on a DAO in its risk disclosures.

There is also a competitive dimension. The Orbit program applies universally, meaning any competitor can take the same path on the same terms. The arrangement Robinhood entered is not exclusive and confers no advantage over the next brokerage to build a chain, which limits how much of a moat the whole exercise creates. What it does create is a template, and the rest of the industry has noticed: our coverage of the tokenized-equity race documented Nasdaq building blockchain share issuance with Kraken’s parent and ICE working with OKX, none of which requires anyone to build from scratch.

Does the arithmetic work Set aside the framing and ask the commercial question, because the answer determines whether any of this matters.

Roughly $42 million annualized in chain revenue, before the subsidy expires, against $4 million to Arbitrum. Against a company whose quarterly revenue runs near $1.27 billion, the chain contributes something in the low single-digit percentage range of annual revenue at current run rates, and the Arbitrum payment is immaterial to the parent by any measure.

Which means the fee share is not the story financially. It is the story structurally, because it clarifies what the chain actually is. Robinhood did not build a chain to earn sequencer fees; the numbers are too small relative to its brokerage business for that to be the motivation. It built one to control the settlement layer for tokenized equities, to avoid depending on a competitor’s infrastructure as that market develops, and to own the venue where its own products trade. Sequencer revenue is a byproduct, and 10% of a byproduct is a reasonable price for the option.

The test comes when the byproduct stops being small. If tokenized equities scale the way the DTCC’s entry into the same market suggests they might, and if Robinhood Chain hosts a meaningful share of that activity, the sequencer line grows and the 10% grows with it. A tenth of a rounding error is nothing. A tenth of a business is a negotiation, and the Arbitrum Expansion Program’s terms were set by the party that wrote them.

The precedent this sets Strip out the two companies and the arrangement describes something the industry has been moving toward without naming: infrastructure providers taking a percentage of businesses they do not operate.

Arbitrum’s position under this model is closer to a franchise operator than a blockchain. It supplies the technology, the tooling, the security assumptions, and the developer support, and it collects a percentage of what franchisees earn across an expanding set of chains it did not build. Offchain Labs has been explicit that this is the strategy, framing enterprise adoption as the revenue thesis and noting that the flagship chain’s economics are separate. The model compounds with adoption in a way that grants and one-time licensing never do.

That has an obvious appeal for anyone holding the governance token, and it has a less obvious implication for everyone building on the stack. A percentage arrangement set at launch, when the tenant is small and the terms are generous, is an arrangement that becomes expensive precisely when the tenant succeeds. Ten percent of nothing costs nothing. Ten percent of a settlement layer hosting a meaningful share of tokenized equities is a real line item, and it is collected by a party whose consent the tenant needed at the start and whose terms the tenant did not write.

The comparison from outside crypto is the app store. Developers accepted a percentage when the platform was small and the alternative was no distribution, and spent the following decade in litigation and regulatory complaint about the rate. Nothing about the Arbitrum arrangement is coercive in that way, since alternatives genuinely exist and the terms are public. But the structural shape is familiar, and the history of platform percentages is that they are renegotiated by the largest tenants, eventually, loudly.

Robinhood is now among the largest tenants on this particular platform. Whether it ever behaves like one is a question for the quarter after the subsidy expires, when the numbers stop being small enough to ignore.

What to watch The revenue line after October. The 90-day gas subsidy expires around then, and the first unsubsidized quarter is the only honest read on what the chain actually earns. Both volumes and revenues reprice, in opposite directions, and the net is unknown.

Whether Timeboost gets adopted. MEV capture on a chain hosting tokenized equities is worth real money, and adopting Arbitrum’s mechanism would likely bring those revenues under the sharing arrangement. The decision is a direct read on how Robinhood values ordering revenue against the cost of sharing it.

Disclosure in the filings. Whether the chain’s economics, including the Arbitrum arrangement, appear in Robinhood’s regulatory filings as a described dependency or a risk factor, and in what language. A public company documenting a revenue-sharing obligation to a DAO would be a first worth reading closely.

Whether the terms hold. The Expansion Program’s rates are set by Arbitrum governance. Any proposal to change them, in either direction, would test how much leverage a large Orbit tenant actually has, and Robinhood is now among the largest.

Competing chains on the same terms. Every brokerage that follows takes the same deal. If the tokenized-equity market fragments across several Orbit chains, the interesting question stops being what Robinhood pays and becomes what Arbitrum collects from an entire category it does not operate.

A final note on why the framing in the existing coverage matters more than it looks. Every account of this arrangement published so far was written for holders of a governance token, which meant the operative question was always whether the revenue share is large enough to justify a rally. That is a legitimate question and it produced accurate reporting. It also produced a blind spot, because a revenue share has two sides and only one of them was ever examined.

The side nobody covered is the one with the public company, the regulatory filings, the customer assets, and the board. Robinhood’s chain is now a material piece of its strategic story, its stock trades on the strength of that story, and the chain’s economics include a permanent obligation to an entity that no securities analyst covering the stock has any reason to have heard of. That gap between how crypto covers a deal and how equity markets would cover the same deal is where most of the useful analysis in this sector currently sits, and it is worth reading every ecosystem announcement with the question of who else is party to it. The same platform-ownership pattern is also visible in the same playbook in prediction markets, where distribution, licensing, and customer ownership intersect.

Frequently asked questions What is the Arbitrum Expansion Program? An arrangement under which any Layer 2 or Layer 3 chain built with Arbitrum’s Orbit technology stack, and settling outside Arbitrum One or Nova, routes 10% of its net protocol revenue back to the Arbitrum ecosystem. Of that, 8% goes to the Arbitrum DAO treasury controlled by ARB tokenholders, and 2% funds the Arbitrum Developer Guild.

How much has Robinhood Chain actually paid? Roughly $200,000, against more than $2 million in cumulative chain revenue since the July 1 launch, which confirms the 10% rate operating in practice. Arbitrum separately reported the network earning over $800,000 in a single seven-day period, annualizing near $42 million, though those figures are suppressed by an ongoing gas subsidy.

Is the 10% calculated on gross or net revenue? Net, after network operating costs, which ties the payment to a chain’s actual profitability rather than to transaction volume. The revenue base is sequencer profits, and if the chain adopts Arbitrum’s Timeboost mechanism for capturing value from transaction ordering, those revenues may fall under the arrangement as well.

Why did Robinhood not just build its own chain from scratch? Time, risk, and ecosystem. Building independently means owning all the revenue and also owning the security, auditing, and defence of a settlement layer holding customer-adjacent assets, with no existing tooling, bridges, or wallet support. Orbit delivered a branded, controlled chain with 100-millisecond block times and technical support from Offchain Labs, live within a week, at the cost of a tenth of net revenue.

Does the payment matter financially to Robinhood? Not currently. At present run rates the Arbitrum share is roughly $4 million a year against quarterly company revenue near $1.27 billion. The chain itself contributes a low single-digit share of annual revenue at best. The arrangement matters structurally rather than financially, because it defines what the chain is and who it depends on.

What is unusual about paying a DAO? The counterparty structure. The 8% flowing to the Arbitrum DAO treasury is controlled by token holders voting through governance, and those same holders influence the roadmap of the technology stack Robinhood’s chain runs on. A federally regulated public company holding a revenue-sharing obligation to, and infrastructure dependency on, a decentralized organization is a novel arrangement with unsettled disclosure and risk-management questions.

Does this give Robinhood any advantage over competitors? Not through the arrangement itself, which is available to anyone on identical terms. Any brokerage can build an Orbit chain and pay the same 10%. Robinhood’s advantages, if they hold, come from distribution and from operating the venue where its own products trade, and the tokenized-equity market is already attracting incumbent exchanges building comparable infrastructure.

What should investors watch? The first unsubsidized quarter after the gas subsidy expires around October, whether Timeboost is adopted and MEV revenue enters the sharing arrangement, how the chain’s economics and the Arbitrum obligation appear in regulatory filings, and any governance proposal to change the Expansion Program’s rates. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Revenue figures reflect third-party trackers and company statements available at the time of writing and are subject to revision, and chain activity is currently affected by a temporary fee subsidy. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 29, 2026.

Banxa Brings Fiat On-Ramp Access to Arbitrum's USDCArbitrum has announced that users can now purchase $USDC directly on the Arbitrum network through Banxa, the regulated fiat-to-crypto payment gateway. The integration covers bank transfers, debit and credit cards, and local payment methods, broadening the ways users can fund positions on one of Ethereum's most active Layer 2 networks.

The move lowers a practical barrier for new and existing users. Rather than acquiring USDC on a centralised exchange and bridging it across, buyers can now land the asset directly on Arbitrum in a single step. Circle launched USDC natively on Arbitrum One in June 2023, adding support for its Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol, which enabled direct minting and burning of USDC between Ethereum and Arbitrum One. As of March 2025, there was over $3.5 billion of USDC in circulation on Arbitrum.

Banxa's Global Payment ReachBanxa is available in more than 180 countries, with support for over 30 fiat currencies and local payment methods worldwide. The company operates as a fiat-to-crypto payment gateway primarily serving crypto exchanges, wallets, and other blockchain platforms that require compliant and secure fiat on-ramps, with a focus on regulatory compliance, fraud prevention, and user verification.

The Arbitrum integration adds to a growing list of blockchain networks where Banxa has established a presence, which already includes Ethereum, Base, Solana, Polygon, Avalanche, and others. Purchase eligibility for $USDC on Arbitrum is subject to applicable order conditions, and availability may vary by region.

For the Arbitrum ecosystem, the partnership represents a more direct path from fiat to on-chain activity, particularly for users in markets where access to centralised exchanges is limited or where local payment rails are preferred over card-based options.

Sources:
Arbitrum Docs: USDC on Arbitrum One
USDC.com: How to Get USDC on Arbitrum
Banxa: On-Ramp and Off-Ramp Solutions

The exploit targeted a bridge operated by derivatives exchange AFX and emptied nearly all of the USDC locked in the contract, according to security firm Blockaid. Arbitrum co-founder Steven Goldfeder said the network's native bridge was not affected.

AFX Trade, a derivatives exchange that settles trades in USDC, was exploited for approximately $24.15 million on July 22 after an attacker targeted a bridge the protocol operates on Arbitrum, according to security firm Blockaid.

Blockaid said it detected the exploit at 21:30 UTC and published the transaction on Arbiscan. "The exploit was specific to a bridge that AFX operates," the firm wrote, adding that it is working with the Arbitrum team "to respond to the incident, to engage with the affected protocol, and to help them contain the stolen funds."

The attacker moved the funds to Ethereum and swapped them for 12,467 ETH at an average price of $1,937, according to onchain analytics account Lookonchain, which linked to the exploiter's address on Arkham.

AFX had not published a statement on its X account as of the time of writing. The Defiant reached out to AFX for comment.

Arbitrum Says Native Bridge UnaffectedSteven Goldfeder, co-founder of Arbitrum developer Offchain Labs, said the exploit did not compromise Arbitrum's own infrastructure.

"We're aware of a report of a bridge hack on Arbitrum and are investigating. We can confirm that the transaction in question originated from a third party protocol, and the Arbitrum native bridge has not been hacked or exploited in any way," Goldfeder wrote. "We will coordinate with the third party team and will report more details when we have them."

Nearly All Bridge Deposits DrainedThe AFX bridge contract on Arbitrum held about $24.2 million in USDC before the attack, according to DefiLlama, meaning the exploit drained nearly all of the funds locked in the contract. Deposits in the bridge had grown from about $19.3 million in mid-June.

AFX, short for Anti-Fragile Exchange, describes itself as a sovereign Layer 1 blockchain built for decentralized derivatives, offering USDC-margined perpetuals with up to 100x leverage on crypto assets, equities, ETFs and commodities, according to its website. User deposits enter the protocol through the Arbitrum-based bridge contract that was targeted in the attack.

The attack follows a string of exploits targeting protocols on Arbitrum in July. On July 15, perpetuals exchange Ostium halted trading after an attacker manipulated its oracle system to drain up to $18 million in USDC from its liquidity vault.

Markets showed little immediate reaction. ETH was trading at about $1,928, roughly flat over 24 hours, while ARB was down 0.3% at $0.0806, according to CoinGecko. ARB set an all-time low of $0.0705 on June 26.

A brief panic rippled through the Arbitrum ecosystem on July 15 when on-chain watchers flagged a suspicious $24 million USDC withdrawal that looked, at first glance, like a bridge exploit. It wasn’t. Arbitrum’s native bridge remains intact, and the real victim was Ostium, a decentralized exchange focused on real-world asset trading that got drained through a compromised oracle key.

The distinction matters enormously. A bridge hack would signal systemic risk across the entire Layer 2 network. An oracle manipulation attack on a single protocol, while painful, is a contained problem. But the roughly $24 million that walked out the door still represents a significant blow, both to Ostium and to confidence in oracle-dependent DeFi protocols.

How the attack worked The attacker gained access to a compromised oracle signer private key, specifically one tied to a PriceUpKeep role within Ostium’s system. The falsified reports contained future-dated price entries. The system treated these bogus reports as legitimate, which allowed the attacker to generate phantom profits on positions. Those fake gains were then withdrawn as very real USDC from Ostium’s liquidity vault, known as the OLP.

The damage was substantial. Estimates place the total loss between $18 million and $24 million USDC, with some on-chain analysis pinpointing the figure at approximately $23.75 million across multiple transactions. Given that the OLP vault held roughly $63 million in total value, the attacker managed to siphon off about 28% of the entire pool.

Advertisement

On-chain security firm Blockaid detected the suspicious activity and alerted the community. Ostium responded by halting all trading operations and freezing affected positions while launching a full investigation.

Why the bridge confusion happened The initial alarm bells rang because the stolen funds were transferred from Arbitrum to Ethereum, which naturally drew attention to bridge infrastructure. But the transfers used authorized routes, primarily through MetaMask, and were validated by the network’s validators as legitimate transactions. The bridge did exactly what it was designed to do: process valid withdrawal requests. The problem was upstream, in how those funds were illegitimately obtained in the first place.

That said, the ARB token still took a hit, declining approximately 4% in the aftermath.

Ostium’s track record and what’s at stake Ostium isn’t a fly-by-night protocol. The platform had previously raised $27.8 million in funding and processed over $50 billion in cumulative trading volume. That pedigree makes the exploit more surprising, not less.

What makes this particular incident notable is that it wasn’t a flash loan attack or a price manipulation scheme using on-chain liquidity pools. It was a key compromise. Someone either stole, phished, or otherwise obtained access to a private key that had elevated privileges within the oracle system.

What this means for investors For Arbitrum holders, the good news is straightforward: the network’s core infrastructure wasn’t breached. The 4% ARB decline looks more like a knee-jerk reaction than a fundamental repricing of risk.

For Ostium liquidity providers, the situation is considerably grimmer. Losing 28% of a vault’s value in a single incident is the kind of event that permanently reshapes a protocol’s risk profile.

Investors should be scrutinizing how protocols manage oracle infrastructure with the same intensity they apply to smart contract audits. Look at how many signer keys exist, what privileges they carry, whether multi-signature requirements are enforced, and what happens if one key is compromised.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Altcoins

21 July 2026 | 20:11 Robinhood Chain has become one of the fastest-growing networks in crypto, and Arbitrum is positioned to be a direct beneficiary.

Key Takeaways Robinhood Chain reached roughly 10 million daily transactions within three weeks of its July 1 mainnet launch. The chain routes 10% of protocol net revenue to the Arbitrum ecosystem: 8% to the DAO treasury, 2% to the Developer Guild. A 90-day gas subsidy is driving activity, keeping current fee revenue minimal until it expires in late September. Early volume is dominated by memecoins and DeFi rather than the tokenized stocks the chain was built for. The Layer 2, built on Arbitrum’s technology stack, reached roughly 10 million daily transactions less than three weeks after its public mainnet opened, and it contributes a share of its revenue back to the Arbitrum ecosystem.

The mechanism is real. The current dollar amounts are not yet meaningful. Understanding both is what separates this story from the version circulating on social media.

A 10 Million-Transaction Chain, With an Asterisk The clearest picture comes from Token Terminal, which wrote on X that “daily transactions on Robinhood Chain reach ~10m, while average block times fall to ~100ms,” calling the result a consumer-grade user experience onchain. The firm’s chart shows the ramp was not a single spike: daily counts climbed through early July and have held between roughly 7 million and 11 million since July 8, with several sessions above 10 million, while average block times collapsed from about 3 seconds at launch to a flat line near 100 milliseconds. Counting methods vary by tracker but every source points the same direction, and Token Terminal’s earlier comparison, cited by CoinDesk, showed the chain overtaking Coinbase’s Base in daily transactions within two weeks of launch.

Robinhood Chain daily transactions and block times. Two caveats keep that figure honest. First, Robinhood is covering all user gas fees for the chain’s first 90 days, which brings the cost of transacting to near zero and inflates activity that might not persist once users pay their own way from late September. Second, the composition is not what the chain was built for: DefiLlama data as of mid July shows memecoins and stablecoins dominating a network holding only about $12.8 million in tokenized real-world assets, against total value locked in the hundreds of millions. The pattern echoes Base’s 2023 launch, where speculation arrived first and durable applications later.

Ten million transactions is also not ten million users. Automated contract interactions, swaps and application-generated activity can all produce multiple transactions per participant. The milestone is evidence of technical capacity, not equivalent adoption. For how tokenized stocks and funds actually work as products, see our guide to RWA tokenization platforms.

How Robinhood Activity Becomes Arbitrum Revenue The economic relationship needs a clarification that most coverage skips. Robinhood Chain does not transfer 10% of every transaction’s value to Arbitrum. Under the Arbitrum Expansion Program, it contributes 10% of the protocol net revenue generated by the chain: 8% to the ArbitrumDAO treasury and 2% to the Arbitrum Developer Guild, routed through the program’s fee infrastructure and incorporated into the DAO’s financial reporting, according to the official ArbitrumDAO factsheet.

The connection to ARB is indirect but real. ARB holders vote on how the DAO treasury is used, including ecosystem funding and treasury allocation. The arrangement includes no automatic ARB buyback and no direct distribution to token holders; it adds revenue to a treasury governed through ARB-based voting.

Why the Numbers Are Still Small Here is where the thesis meets the ledger. During the subsidy period, the chain’s daily protocol fees have run at approximately $4,000, and FalconX estimated in April that Robinhood Chain could generate about $1.1 million in fees over six months. Ten percent of net revenue on figures that size is not a treasury-moving number for a DAO of Arbitrum’s scale.

The revenue thesis is therefore a forward-looking one. It depends on activity surviving beyond the subsidy, on fee-paying usage replacing subsidized speculation, and on tokenized securities and payments growing into the volumes that speculative trading currently occupies. If those conditions hold, the recurring flow to Arbitrum grows with them. If activity collapses in October, the 10% share applies to very little.

The Real Boost: A Blueprint for More Chains The larger value to Arbitrum may not be this chain’s fees at all, but what its launch demonstrates. Robinhood opened the mainnet on July 1, 2026 after a February public testnet that, according to the Arbitrum Foundation, processed more than 200 million transactions before production. The company first launched its Stock Tokens on Arbitrum One in 2025, validated the product on shared infrastructure, then migrated to a dedicated chain, the “launch-and-migrate” model described in Arbitrum’s announcement.

Technically, the chain runs first-come, first-served sequencing with roughly 100-millisecond preconfirmations, settles to Ethereum using blob data availability per the official documentation, and is fully EVM-compatible: it uses ETH for gas, supports standard Ethereum wallets, and assets move in over standard infrastructure of the kind covered in our guide to the Arbitrum Bridge and its alternatives. It is also permissionless, meaning external developers deploy without Robinhood’s approval, per Robinhood’s support documentation. The 100-millisecond figure describes ordering and preconfirmation speed, not final Ethereum settlement.

For Arbitrum, a household-name brokerage proving that model at this scale is a sales document for every other institution weighing its own chain. Each additional Expansion Program chain adds another revenue stream to the same treasury. That compounding pipeline, more than this quarter’s fees, is the realistic version of the “Robinhood boosts Arbitrum” story.

The competitive stakes are visible elsewhere: as our analysis of Solana’s second quarter showed, roughly 97% of tokenized-equity trading currently runs through Solana. Robinhood Chain is the most credible attempt yet to pull that market onto Ethereum-aligned rails.

Confirming the Thesis Transaction counts and active addresses in October, after the subsidy expires; sustained seven-figure daily activity on paid fees would convert the launch spike into a business. The share of activity coming from tokenized securities, visible in the chain’s TVL composition. The actual revenue contributions appearing in ArbitrumDAO’s financial reporting, which will put a public dollar figure on what the 10% share is worth. Until then, Robinhood Chain has proven the technology scales and the revenue pipe exists. Whether meaningful money flows through it is a question the coming months will answer.

Source: Based on Robinhood and Arbitrum official documentation and announcements, the ArbitrumDAO factsheet, and network data from Token Terminal and DefiLlama, checked July 21, 2026.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice.

Author

Kosta has reported on cryptocurrency markets and blockchain infrastructure since 2020, bringing over six years of hands-on experience in the crypto industry built through daily tracking of markets, trends, and emerging blockchain developments. Specializing in Bitcoin on-chain analysis, institutional ETF flows, and digital asset price action, his work at Coindoo has been cited by other news agencies and consistently covers market developments with a focus on data-driven reporting across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP. Over the years, Kosta has contributed to multiple crypto media outlets in different regions, authoring over 6,000 articles across the sector. His reporting spans cryptocurrency markets and the broader fintech industry, tracking not only price action but also the technological and regulatory forces shaping the ecosystem. To support his analysis, Kosta actively leverages on-chain data and metrics from leading platforms such as Santiment, Glassnode, and CryptoQuant, enabling deeper, evidence-based market insights. He believes in the power of transparency and the data that underpins the blockchain ecosystem. His academic background in Marketing Management from Denmark further complements his analytical approach, adding a strong understanding of communication strategy and content positioning to his work.

@RobinhoodCrypto's Ethereum Layer 2 network is only 16 days old, and it is already moving serious money. Robinhood Chain recorded $5.254 billion in weekly DEX volume, a 490% jump week over week, according to DefiLlama data. For a chain that only opened its public mainnet on July 1, 2026, the numbers are difficult to ignore.

Uniswap Is Doing Almost All of the Work The volume story is largely a single-protocol story. @Uniswap accounted for $588.93 million of the $594.74 million traded on the chain in the most recent 24-hour window, making every other protocol on Robinhood Chain a rounding error by comparison. That concentration reflects Uniswap's position as the designated public liquidity layer on the network, a role it was given at launch alongside infrastructure partners including Chainlink, BitGo, and Morpho.

Robinhood Chain was built on Arbitrum's Orbit technology and settles to Ethereum as an optimistic rollup. The chain was unveiled at Robinhood's "The World Is Flat" event in London and was positioned from the outset as infrastructure for tokenized real-world assets, offering stock tokens available in more than 120 countries alongside a DeFi lending product called Robinhood Earn, which routes user deposits into a Morpho-powered USDG vault at an estimated 7% annual yield.

Strong Flows, But TVL Lags the Volume The gap between trading activity and capital locked on the chain is wide. DeFi TVL stands at $220 million against $5.25 billion in weekly volume, with $816 million bridged into the network. The chain itself booked $175,178 in revenue in a single day, a meaningful figure for a network still in its first weeks.

The chain's stated focus on tokenized real-world assets remains a small part of the actual activity. Early volume has been driven heavily by speculation, including a surge in meme coin trading, rather than the tokenized stock use case Robinhood originally advertised. Still, the raw throughput has been enough to push Robinhood Chain into the top tier of DEX networks globally. On July 12, the chain ranked second in 24-hour DEX volume across all networks, trailing only Solana, according to DefiLlama data.

The chain launched with a built-in distribution advantage that most new L2 networks do not have. Robinhood operates a brokerage serving nearly 28 million customers, giving the network a ready-made audience from day one. Whether that early volume converts into sustained DeFi activity and genuine RWA adoption will be the question to watch in the weeks ahead.

Sources
Robinhood Chain on DefiLlama: TVL, Volume and Revenue
CoinDesk: Robinhood Rolls Out Public Blockchain
Bitcoin.com: Robinhood Chain Surges Past $3 Billion in DEX Volume